Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Worthing) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (CADET MOVEMENT).

Brigadier-General NATION: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that 52 per cent. of the total number of persons presenting themselves as recruits for the Army this year were rejected on physical and medical reasons, he will give more consideration to the encouragement of cadet units, both as regards numbers and their attendance at the annual summer camps?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): If my hon. and gallant Friend can suggest any further means of encouraging the cadet movement which do not involve expense to Army funds, they will be favourably considered.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Can the Financial Secretary say whether the figure 52 per cent. given in the question is the normal figure for rejections on grounds of physique or whether it is abnormally high this year?

Mr. COOPER: As I have indicated in replies to similar questions, no deduction can be made from any figures of this kind as the standard is increased from time to time—it was increased this year—in regard to height and chest measurements, and, if the rejections are higher, it does
not show any deterioration in the strength or health of the people.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not because the parents of these young men have not the wherewithal to buy the necessaries of life that 52 per cent. do not come up to the necessary standard? We are a 3C nation now.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Can the hon. Member say whether the same figures apply to the Territorial Army?

Mr. COOPER: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DEER (LEGISLATION).

Lord SCONE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the proposed deer legislation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I would refer my Noble Friend to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) on 14th November. The difficulties of framing a workable Measure have not yet been overcome.

Lord SCONE: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, can he give the House any indication when this Measure, which is urgently desired by all sides, is likely to be introduced?

Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure the Noble Lord that the Bill will be drafted as soon as we can overcome certain fundamental difficulties which have arisen in drafting, but until these difficulties have been overcome I cannot give the House any indication on the matter.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Is it not 10 years since the report of this committee was presented?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of that, and I am addressing myself to the problem, but up to the moment as these drafting difficulties have not been overcome it has been impossible to draft a Bill.

FARM SERVANTS (HALF-DAY HOLIDAY).

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what answer has been given by his Department
at any time during the last 10 years to requests from the Farm Servants' Union of Scotland for legislation to provide a statutory half-holiday for farm servants?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Department of Agriculture for Scotland are unable to trace any request of the kind mentioned in the question.

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Commander COCHRANE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish such details of the financial relations between the Government and each separately-rated area in Scotland as will show the financial effect of the Unemployment Bill?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I regret that the particulars asked for are not yet available. The estimates which will determine the effect of the Bill on the financial relations between the Exchequer and the various local authorities are in course of preparation, but owing to the complicated calculations that are involved, the information will not be available for some time.

Commander COCHRANE: Are we to understand that the Under-Secretary is willing to publish a White Paper when he has this necessary information?

Mr. SKELTON: It will be considered when the information is received.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Member aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane), said that the extent of the concession likely to be allocated was ½ d. in the pound?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the total sum which Glasgow will receive as its share from the Government as assistance in respect of unemployment; and whether he can state the total amount which will have to be contributed by Glasgow from the local rates to complete the sum necessary for the cost of maintaining the local unemployed?

Mr. SKELTON: I regret I am unable to supply the information desired by the hon. Member for the reasons stated in answer to the previous question.

Mr. MACLEAN: When will the Under-Secretary be able to give the information?

Mr. SKELTON: I cannot say at the moment, but I will let the hon. Member know.

POLICE (CONSOLIDATION).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government intend to take action to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Police Consolidation in Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: The report of the Police Consolidation (Scotland) Committee, which was presented to Parliament on the 14th instant, is receiving careful consideration. Copies of the report were circulated yesterday to all police authorities and others concerned.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Lord SCONE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to introduce legislation to empower Scottish magistrates to prohibit the attendance of children at exhibitions of unsuitable films?

Sir G. COLLINS: Following on meetings with the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of Great Britain and Ireland I am at present awaiting a reply in regard to an arrangement which may avoid the necessity for legislation, and I hope to be able to make an announcement on the subject after the Christmas Recess.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, ERROL.

Lord SCONE: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the introduction of electricity into the village of Errol?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I am informed by the Grampian Electricity Supply Company that it is anticipated that the supply to Errol will be available by the end of this month.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. MCGOVERN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of claims for widows' pensions that have been refused for 1931, 1932, and 1933, respectively, and the number granted for the same period?

Mr. SKELTON: In 1931 the number of claims for widows' pensions under the Contributory (Pensions Acts refused in Scotland was 4,118 and the number granted 12,406. In 1932 the corresponding figures were 1,540 and 9,104; and in 1933 1,376 and 9,133.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government propose to bring in legislation with a view to giving widows' pensions to those people who are excluded at present?

Mr. SKELTON: That question does not arise on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PISHING INDUSTRY.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. H. STEWART: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has now received on the position of the Scottish herring centres; what degree of distress these reports show; and whether he is now able to concede the request for temporary financial assistance to these areas, in view of the failure of the summer and Yarmouth fishings?

Mr. BOOTH BY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received a report on the situation in the fishing towns and villages of the northeast; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to relieve the distress?

Sir G. COLLINS: Reports from the various fishing centres have now been received and although the results of the autumn fishing are slightly better than was at first thought, there is no doubt that the financial position of the fishermen is in general very unsatisfactory. There is no indication, however, at the moment that the local authorities concerned will be unable to deal with distress without special assistance. The situation in the areas principally affected will be closely watched during the coming months.

Mr. H. STEWART: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that local provision to cover the distress will necessarily place a greater burden on local ratepayers, who are themselves in many cases distressed fishermen, and in that case, will he not consider offering special financial assistance?

Sir G. COLLINS: I addressed myself to this problem this morning, and, if the
present rate of unemployment continues in these areas, the rates in the pound, compared with other areas, would not be excessive.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Are we to take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not rule out the possibility, should conditions become worse, of affording direct financial assistance to these areas at a later stage?

Sir G. COLLINS: That question has not arisen, and I must await the circumstances before taking further action.

Sir M. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of assisting public works in these districts?

Sir G. COLLINS: I made inquiries on that subject, and in some of the areas public works such as harbours were instituted, but they did not result in much local labour being required.

Sir M. WOOD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any progress has been made with his efforts to reach a solution of the difficulty in the Moray Firth where foreign trawlers are permitted to fish in waters from which British trawlers are excluded?

Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that up to the present it has not been found possible to make progress in this matter.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the issuing of a statement explaining to the fishermen the difficulties of the Government in dealing with this question?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure that the fishermen, as well as my hon. Friend, are well aware of the difficulties which have confronted every Government in this matter for 25 years.

Sir M. WOOD: No, indeed. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I have attempted to explain to the fishermen the difficulties I have been contradicted, and, in view of the fact that the Assembly of the Church of Scotland have passed a resolution on the matter, does he not think it highly desirable in order to satisfy public opinion that the Government should issue an official statement explaining why they cannot close this area to foreign trawlers?

Sir G. COLLINS: May I remind my hon. Friend that there are other
problems connected with the fishing industry which have been under consideration?

CURED HERRING (RUSSIA).

Sir M. WOOD: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that about half of the herring cured during the course of the recent East Anglian fishing are still unsold; that, unless these herring find an outlet, many curers will not resume operations next summer; that if a trade agreement with Russia was now in operation a sale of herring could be effected; and whether he can take steps to have an agreement concluded without further delay?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware of the difficulties of the herring industry. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there will be no avoidable delay here in concluding the negotiations now in progress for a new commercial agreement with the Soviet Union.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation is seriously affecting employment, inasmuch as curers are unable to set their coopers at work until they know more clearly the prospects for next year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, I am quite well informed on that matter.

INSTITUTIONS (HERRING RATION).

Mr. H. STEWART: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, in order to bring relief to the fishing industry, he will cause instructions to be addressed to the various departments concerned to ensure that a weekly ration of herring is included in the menu of all State-controlled and State-supported institutions, such as the Army, Navy and Air Force, Ministry of Labour centres, schools, &c.; and if he will cause recommendations in the same sense to be addressed to local authorities with regard to the institutions under their control?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): While I have every sympathy with the purpose of my hon. Friend, it would be difficult to issue any general instructions on the lines indicated by him for one particular commodity. I think his best course would be to submit any suggestions he may have for increasing the consumption of herring direct to the Government Departments concerned.

Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot the National Government give the nation a lead by eating more herring during the holidays?

Mr. PIKE: Would not the consumption of more herring lead to an increased consumption of beer?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MAYPOLE COLLIERY, WIGAN (EXPLOSION).

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet received a full report of the explosion that occurred on the coal face in the No. 2 Pit, Seven-foot Mine, of the Maypole Colliery, near Wigan, on 4th November, 1933; whether he is satisfied that there was no breach of regulations; if so, whether he is satisfied with the stringency of the regulations; and whether an automatic gas detector was in use?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have received a full report from the Divisional Inspector on this explosion by which, I regret to say, two men lost their lives. The hon. Member will be aware that the inquest jury returned a verdict of accidental death, and found that the explosion resulted from a fall of coal breaking the glass of a flame safety lamp. Nothing has emerged to throw doubt on the correctness of the verdict, though such a cause is happily a rare one. There is no evidence of any breach of the regulations, and I am satisfied that the regulations themselves are adequate, provided they are supported by due vigilance on the part of the officials and workmen. There was no automatic firedamp detector in use, but the circumstances, in my view, were such that if there had been one it would not have given any warning of danger.

Mr. MACDONALD: On what ground does the Minister state that an automatic gas detector would not have prevented an accident?

Mr. BROWN: Even if the pit had been equipped with automatic gas detectors, as I told the hon. Member, it by no means follows that, if one of these had been hung up in this heading at that particular time, it would have signalled danger. All the evidence goes to show
that the gas was well up in the high side of the heading and not in the general body of air. The gas was brought into the general body of air, and simultaneously the lamp-glass was broken by the same fall of coal. Consequently there was no time for any previous warning of danger to be given. Those are the facts underlying my reply.

Mr. DAVID DAVIES: Would it not be true to say that, if you had an accumulation of gas in the heading, it constituted a violation of the Act?

Mr. BROWN: Not in these circumstances, after careful investigation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister not aware that there can be no explosion unless there is from 5½ to 6 per cent. of gas? Is he aware that an automatic detector would have indicated gas there long before the lamp was broken?

Mr. BROWN: It depends entirely on whether the detector was at the spot where detection was to be made.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: What was the distance of the heading away from the nearest area where there was some ventilation?

Mr. BROWN: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. KIRK WOOD: Is the Minister satisfied that every precaution is taken to safeguard human life in the mines of the country?

Mr. BROWN: That is so.

ROYALTIES AND PROFITS.

12and 13. Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the amount paid in royalties in the coalmining industry of Great Britain during the first nine months of this year and for each of the previous four years, giving separate figures for Lancashire;
(2) the total profits in the coal-mining industry of Great Britain during the first nine months of 1933 and for each of the previous four years, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves statistical tables I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MACDONALD: Can the hon. Member say whether the amount is less or more this year?

Mr. BROWN: There are ten tables, and I think that my hon. Friend had better analyse them. I think he will find that the amount is less.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Member also publish figures for the last four years showing where losses have been made?

Mr. BROWN: If a question is put down, I will see what answer I can give.

Following are the tables:


Period.
Total Amount of Royalties and Way leaves* paid by Colliery Owners in


Great Britain.†
Lancashire and Cheshire.



£
£


1929
5,912,000
373,400


1930
5,457,00
348,700


1931
5,135,000
352,100


1932
4,827,000
316,500


1933 (Jan. to Sept.).
3,552,000
242,800


* Including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors.


† The particulars included for South Wales and Monmouth relate to the years ended 31st January, 1930 to 1933, and to the nine months ended 31st October, 1933.

Period.
Net Profits (+) or Losses (-) of the Coal Mining Industry.


Great Britain.*
Lancashire and Cheshire.



£
£


1929
+ 4,302,000
-105,400


1930
+ 3,892,000
-150,200


1931
+ 2,897,000
-19,200


1932
+ 1,522,000
-57,300


1933 (Jan. to Sept.).
+ 235,000†
-225,700†


* The particulars included for South Wales and Monmouth relate to the years ended 31st January, 1930 to 1933, and to the nine months ended 31st October, 1933.


† These figures cannot be compared with those for calendar years since the trading results during the December Quarter of recent years have shown a substantial profit.

NOTE.—The figures given above are based on the returns furnished in connection with the wages ascertainments and exclude those items which, by agree-
merit, are inadmissible as charges for the purpose of those ascertainments, such as interest on debentures or other loans, bank charges, amortisation and taxation.

FLOODED PIT, WESTHOUGHTON.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that a part of Stott's Pit, Westhoughton, has recently been flooded; that the Westhoughton Colliery Company had agreed to discuss a possible co-operative pumping scheme for the area; that the Wigan Coal Corporation, which is involved in this difficulty, would not agree; and whether, in view of the continued danger to this and the several colliery undertakings in Westhoughton and neighbourhood, he will take action to prevent the serious economic consequences which are feared in that district?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first three parts of the question is, yes. With regard to the last part, my Department has kept closely in touch with the position, but the hon. Member knows how very limited my powers are. The matter is primarily one for solution by the owners of the mines concerned, but I shall always be ready to help in any way I can.

Mr. DAVIES: Seeing that the hon. Gentleman and his Department have no power to bring these parties together with the view of a co-operative pumping scheme, does he not think that, as a deadlock has arisen, he ought to seek Parliamentary powers in order to see what can be done to remove such deadlocks?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will understand that that question raises a very wide issue, and goes much further than this particular case.

Mr. TINKER: Is the Minister not aware that unless some action is taken in this case, the flooding may spread to other mines in the area and stop them? Is it not time that the Mines Department asked for some further powers to deal with a position like this?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that we have discussed this question with him very minutely. We are well aware of the facts.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the threat of this water to other pits in the same area,
does the Minister not think that he ought to secure power from Parliament to take action in cases like this?

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member knows that I shall be glad to help in any way I can, but he is flow asking for something much wider than dealing with this particular case.

SAFETY REGULATIONS (LAMPS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 16.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has completed his consultation with the various organisations regarding the use of automatic gas alarms underground; and, if so, whether he can make a statement as to what action he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: I have not fully completed my consultation with the various organisations, but the discussions have reached a point at which I feel able to make the following statement on the subject:
The desirability of providing means to enable underground workmen at any time to supplement the tests as to the safety of the atmosphere which are made from time to time by the deputies and other officials, is a problem of safety which was created through the displacement of the flame safety lamp by the electric safety lamp. It was studied in 1922 by the Miners' Lamps Committee and they recommended in effect that the practice already existing at some mines where electric lamps were in general use of providing a proportion of the workmen with flame safety lamps should be made generally compulsory by regulation; the Committee further recommended that workmen so provided should be instructed and qualified in the use of the flame safety lamp as a gas detector. No regulations were made to give effect to these Recommendations: opinions in the industry were sharply divided and there was not generally shown at that time that willingness to accept the new duties which the Committee pointed out to be an essential condition of effective action.
Since that time, the problem has grown both in size and in complexity, and other forms of detector (including the automatic detector) have been developed as an alternative to the flame safety lamp. Moreover I propose to make, early next year, regulations, already under discussion, to secure improved lighting. These
regulations are likely to involve the replacement of a large proportion of the safety lamps now in use at and about the coal face by lamps of much higher candle power, and in this respect are likely therefore to have an important bearing on the problem.
In these circumstances, I think it is necessary that a fresh attempt should now be made to deal with it, and I have given instructions for the framing of a draft of regulations to deal with the matter comprehensively, and as definitely as the very wide variation in the relevant conditions at different mines will permit. Following the usual procedure it is my intention as soon as this draft is ready to communicate it to the representative associations of the industry for their consideration, and subsequent discussion with me.

POLISH COAL EXPORTS.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the recent import of Polish coal into Gibraltar and the increasing import of coal from that country into Italy; and, as this has a serious effect upon the export of coal from South Wales, will he state what action, if any, the Government is taking to deal with this matter?

Mr. E. BROWN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to Gibraltar, I am advised that the Polish coal referred to is for use as bunkers. I would remind the hon. Member that it is not unusual for foreign bunker coal to be sold by British firms at bunkering depots abroad in cases where a refusal to deal in foreign coal would result in a diversion of shipping to other ports. With regard to Italy, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14th December by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry).

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will appoint a small departmental committee to consider bow to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Com-
mission on Newfoundland that the development of the land should be encouraged and speculation discouraged by an annual tax on forest lands?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this question will, in the first instance, be a matter for the consideration of the proposed Commission of Government, but his suggestion will be borne in mind in case, after examination of the Royal Commission's recommendations on this matter, the new commissioners should desire further advice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what has been done in the Dominions in this direction, in particular with the provinces of Canada, and how far they have succeeded or failed, and the reason why?

Mr. HANNON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I first have an answer to my question?

Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better to let this matter stand over until the new commission is at work in Newfoundland?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not propose to enter into a controversy on this question of land values and taxation. The report specifically mentions this subject, and I have indicated that the first thing will be for the commissioners themselves to consider that report, and then it will be dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

NEW ZEALAND (IMPORT DUTIES).

Colonel GOODMAN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulties facing exporters of British goods to New Zealand in the way of import duties, exchange equalisation, and sales tax amounting to 30s. on a shipment of gloves at 40s.; and whether, as Empire products and produce enter this country either free of duty or subject to a substantial preference, he proposes to make representations to the Dominion Government as to the desirability of reducing the charges on British imported products?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am aware that gloves are liable to import duty and to
sales tax in New Zealand and that New Zealand currency is depreciated in relation to sterling. I would, however, point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the rate of the British preferential duty on gloves imported into New Zealand was reduced from 39 13/16 per cent. ad valorem to 28½ per cent. ad valorem as a result of the Trade Agreement concluded at Ottawa, and that United Kingdom gloves enjoy a large measure of tariff preference over foreign gloves. As regards the latter part of the question, a Tariff Commission is now engaged in reviewing the duties on United Kingdom goods in accordance with the principles of Article 8 of the Trade Agreement.

WIRELESS SETS.

Mr. REMER: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the agreement between the eight leading manufacturers and the wholesale traders restricting the sale of radio receivers and wireless sets to certain wholesale dealers; and, in view of the detriment to the progress of the industry caused by such agreements, what steps he is taking to prevent them?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that certain manufacturers of wireless sets have entered into an agreement for exclusive dealing with certain wholesalers, and that other manufacturers and other wholesalers are not parties to this agreement. I see no reason for taking any action in the matter.

DANISH BACON IMPORTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the value in kroner of Danish bacon imports into this country for the past six months compares with the value of those imports for a similar period in 1931 and 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the desired information is not available as exports of pig products from Denmark for periods other than calendar years are recorded in the trade returns of that country by quantities only.

NICKEL EXPORTS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in order to stop the manufacture of armaments all over the world, he will, in view of the fact that 90 per cent. of the world's
supply of nickel comes from the British Empire, take steps to prohibit any export of nickel from this country, and also enter into negotiations with Canada and any other parts of the Empire that produce nickel with the same object?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. Sir. Nickel has important uses in many industries and interference with the supply of raw material to those industries in the way suggested would do harm to trade and would be, in my view, quite unjustifiable.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if we were to stop the supply of nickel for the manufacture of armaments, no armaments could be made, and that by that method we could stop war?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid it is not in our power to stop the supply of nickel universally.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the seriousness of the situation; and, if so, does he not think it merits a powerful Government like the British Government taking action such as I have suggested?

AIRCRAFT (EXPORT).

Mr. WILMOT: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the conditions as to licence under which aircraft and aircraft parts intended for military and naval purposes may be exported by British manufacturers to foreign purchasers?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is an open general licence to export aircraft to all destinations except Ethiopia, for which country specific licences are required. If, however, aircraft are fitted with armament a specific export licence is required in respect of such armament, whatever its destination.

Mr. WILMOT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be desirable to arrange some licensing system for aircraft definitely designed for naval or military purposes, so as to prevent British manufacturers re-arming foreign Powers, whose armaments will, in turn, be used as arguments in support of a demand for further aerial armaments in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that, in so far as they are provided with armaments, a specific licence is required.

Mr. WILMOT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he refers to the fitting of a gun as armament, or whether an aeroplane by its design would be regarded as an armed aeroplane?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Gentleman wants a definition of "armament," he must give me notice of the question.

LAMPORT AND HOLT, LIMITED.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the receiver of Lamport and Holt, Limited, which presents details of large losses; will he institute an inquiry as to when these losses began first to be known to the company and the reason why the auditors did not disclose the position from that time onwards?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been drawn to the circular issued by the receiver for the debenture holders in Lamport and Holt, Limited. The Board of Trade, however, have no power to investigate the affairs of the company except on the application of shareholders holding not less than one-tenth of the shares issued.

RUSSIA.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be in a position to make a statement of the progress made in the negotiations for a trade agreement with Russia before the House rises?

Mr. BOOTH BY: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any further information regarding the negotiations for a trade agreement between Great Britain and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The negotiations for a new trade agreement with the Soviet Government are still proceeding. I am not in a position to make any further statement at the present moment.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, agreement or no agreement, the present unfavourable balance of trade between this country and Russia will not be allowed to continue indefinitely?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: One of the objects of an agreement is to bring the totals on the two sides nearer to each other.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a definite statement before the Adjournment on Thursday as to what progress is being made in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. Sir.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday.

JAPANESE COMPETITION.

Mr. REMER: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the progress being made in the negotiations with Japan as to Japanese competition in home, colonial and dominion markets; and when these conversations will be concluded?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that a meeting between the Japanese industrialists in this country and the representatives of the United Kingdom cotton and rayon industries is to be held tomorrow. I cannot say when these discussions will be concluded.

Mr. BAILEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if these negotiations are unduly protracted, the Government will take the necessary action to deal with the Japanese menace before they are concluded?

Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall refer to this question on Thursday, in addition to the other question of which I have already given notice.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Mr. MACLEAN: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the name of the firm which has chartered the two Dutch steamers to load timber and grain in British Columbia for the United Kingdom; the rate and conditions of the chartering; whether any British shipping firm was approached with a view to chartering their ships for the above purposes; and, if so, what was the difference between the rates?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: These charters were made in the ordinary way on the open market and consequently British as well as foreign ships were considered. I am informed that the reason for chartering the Dutch ships was that no suitable British ships were available at the re-
quired date to take the two cargoes. The hon. Member may be interested to know, that of the ships chartered for the organisation concerned this year to bring timber and grain from the Pacific coast, 46 have been British and five foreign.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the conditions of the loans to Belfast shipbuilding firms which are guaranteed by the Ulster Government; if he is aware that this enables Belfast firms to submit preferential tenders for shipbuilding contracts in Great Britain; and, as this Ulster guarantee places other British firms at a disadvantage, will he take steps with a view to securing conditions of equality for loans and guarantees for all shipbuilding firms in the United Kingdom?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Loans Guarantee Acts of Northern Ireland give power to the Northern Irish Government to guarantee the principal of, and interest on, loans raised for the purpose of capital construction in Northern Ireland. I understand that applications for guarantees are investigated by an advisory committee, who, in making their recommendation to the Government, no doubt attach such conditions to the granting of a guarantee as are required by the circumstances of the particular case. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not clear what measures the hon. Member has in mind. If he is referring to the re-enactment of Trade Facilities legislation for shipbuilding generally in this country, I can only say that His Majesty's Government do not propose to adopt this course. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 12th December to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am not referring to those credits, but my question referred to this, that the shipbuilders in Northern Ireland are getting a grant of money that goes from here because Northern Ireland is a necessitous area, and they are using that money to undercut the shipbuilders in this country, who are thus at a disadvantage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this places the shipbuilders in Belfast in an advantageous position in tendering for ships, so that
the men in the British shipyards are being compelled to accept a lower standard of life as a result of what is going on in Belfast?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is going beyond the question.

Mr. D. D. REID: Is it not a fact that no loans have been made to Belfast for shipbuilding either by the Northern Government or by anyone else?

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this Government can at least make an inquiry into this with a view to—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member 13 asking for an opinion.

Mr. MACLEAN: No; I am asking for action to be taken.

Mr. ALAN TODD (for Mr. CHORLTON): 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, when making arrangements for the assistance of British shipping, he will give special consideration to cotton textile exports to India and raw cotton imports from that country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the question of the raw jute from India also be remembered?

DEPRECIATED CURRENCIES (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to impose special duties against goods coming from countries which have depreciated their currencies since the date of the Import Duties Act, 1932?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Members for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and for North-East Derby (Mr. Whyte) on the 23rd November. The position has not changed materially since then.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish a complete list of countries which have depreciated their currencies in relation to sterling since the date of the Abnormal Importations Act, 1931, showing in each case the par value of such
currencies, the value as at the date of the Abnormal Importations Act, 1931, at the date of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the value at the latest recorded date; and will he state to what extent the depreciation of foreign currencies has discounted the import duties imposed by this country?

Quotations to £ sterling except where otherwise stated.
Date of the Abnormal Importations Act. 20th Nov., 1931.
Date of the Import Duties Act. 29th Feb., 1932.
Current quotation. 15th Dec, 1933.




Parity.





Greece
…
375 dr.
300
270
580


Finland
…
193.23 mks.
192
220
226½


Austria
…
34.59 sch.
28
32
29½


Jugoslavia
…
276.32 din.
220
195
240


Estonia
…
18.16 kr.
14
13
18¼


Norway
…
18.16 kr.
18.56
18.44
19.90


Sweden
…
18.16 kr.
18.44
18.12
19.40


Denmark
…
18.16 kr.
18.56
18.19
22.40


Japan*
…
yen= 2s. 0.58d.
2s. 7⅓ 7/2 d.
1s. 9 5/16d.
1s. 2⅓ 5/2 d.


Philippine Islands*
…
peso= 24.66d.
2s. 6¼ d.
2s. 10½ d.
1s. 11⅜ d.


Argentina
…
$= 47.62d.
37⅛ d.
38¾ d.
35⅞ d.


Peru
…
17.38 soles.
13.40
12.275
23.05


Mexico
…
9.76 pesos.
10.25
9.375
17.75


Canada
…
4.86⅔ $.
4.25 3/1 3/6
3.94½
5.09¾


United States.
…
4.86⅔ $.
3.74
3.48
5.13½


New Zealand†
…

£110 11s. 3d.
£110 11s. 3d.
£125 7s. 6d.


South Africa†
…

£82 10s. 0d.
£74 0s. 0d.
£100 7s. 6d.


Bolivia
…
13.33 bols.
13.03
13.10
20.00


Colombia
…
5 pesos.
4.20
36.2
7.74


Ecuador
…
24.3325 suc.
20.50
20.68
30.96


Salvador
…
9.73 cols.
8.44
8.62
16.70


Chile
…
40.00 pesos.
30.90
29.10
‡





(19th Nov., 1931)
(25th Feb., 1932)



* Pence to local currency.


† Rate per £100 sterling.


‡ Quotations on Chile are nominal and the depreciation since February, 1932 (which is heavy), cannot be exactly measured.

CANADA (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. EADY (for Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON): 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, in view of the fact that the Canadian Tariff Board has ruled that the Canadian Customs Department had no authority since November, 1932, to impose arbitrary valuations on British goods or to apply dumping duties, he will now take steps to inform British exporters of these overcharges and the steps which should be taken by British exporters to secure rebates?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I understand that the ruling of the Canadian Tariff Board to which the hon. Member refers applied

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures he asks for in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the last part of the question is largely a matter of conjecture, on which it is not possible to make any definite statement.

Following are the figures:

solely to a valuation issued in respect of jute twines. I am informed that in Canada this ruling is regarded as subject to appeal and that pending the expiry of the period within which an appeal may be lodged, His Majesty's Government in Canada have not been in a position to take action to give effect to the ruling. In these circumstances the latter part of the question does not arise.

GERMANY (ASSISTED EXPORTS).

Mr. EADY (for Mr. GIBSON): 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government proposes to take any action to offset the damage done to traders in this country by the German
method of subsidising exports to this country by block marks obtained at a considerable discount?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28th November to the hon. Members for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and West Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay).

TURKEY (COMPENSATION SYSTEM).

Mr. EADY (for Mr. GIBSON): 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the withdrawal of the compensation system by the Turkish Government, which is prejudicing our trade as against other countries who have entered into new commercial agreements with Turkey, and seeing that Great Britain has placed no restrictions on imports from that country, the Government will take steps to prevent the cancellation of compensation agreements without notice and negotiate with Turkey a convention on the lines of that concluded by the United States of America?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The "compensation system" has been withdrawn by the Turkish Government as against all countries, and the withdrawal involves no discrimination against United Kingdom trade. No special convention has been concluded between Turkey and the United States of America, though Turkey has granted the United States of America certain unilateral concessions, and has recently concluded agreements with several European countries granting them certain concessions not extended to United Kingdom trade. As I have previously stated, representations have been made to the Turkish Government regarding the most-favoured-nation rights which this country possesses, but the negotiation of a special agreement with Turkey is not in contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

INCOME TAX (OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES).

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the general commissioners in the various Income Tax districts have to decide whether in each individual case the wearing of uniform by British mercantile marine officers is necessary for the performance of their duties in foreign ports, and that the test
which is usually applied to them is whether the wearing of uniform is a condition of employment, and that as some shipowners do not stipulate for the wearing of uniform their officers are deprived of deductions which they would otherwise be entitled to; and whether he will exercise his powers under Section 713 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to make a recommendation that the wearing of uniform by these officers in foreign ports is necessary, so as to satisfy the general commissioners?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that I have no power to use Section 713 in the sense suggested even if it were desirable to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing these allowances on to an equitable basis for all officers of the mercantile marine?

STEAMSHIP "SAXILBY."

Mr. LOGAN: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the result of the inquiries into the sinking of the steamship "Saxilby"?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. Sir. Inquiries are still going on, and I cannot as yet add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member on 5th December.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (ROAD ACCIDENTS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will be in a position to make a statement regarding the steps that he is taking to deal with the problem of road accidents before the House rises?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am afraid it will not be possible for my hon. Friend to make a statement on the subject before the House rises, but he hopes to do so at an early date after the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION (INTERNATIONAL RACE).

Mr. PERKINS: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether this country will be represented in the international air race around Europe, which is to be held in Warsaw next August?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): A decision in regard to a British entry for this international air race, which is being held under the auspices of the Polish Aero Club, is not, of course, for the Air Ministry. I am given to understand that the Royal Aero Club do not contemplate a British entry, partly on grounds of cost and partly because of certain technical considerations, and that British representation is therefore doubtful.

Mr. PERKINS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British pilots who entered for this race last year were compelled to fly under Italian and German colours and that next year they will be compelled to fly under Polish colours; and does he consider that it is in the best interests of British commercial and private aviation that British pilots should always be compelled to fly under foreign colours?

Sir P. SASSOON: No. Sir. In this case, however, it is not a matter for the Air Ministry, but for owners of aircraft as private individuals, and I may add that the conditions make it almost impossible to have a British entry.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSULIN.

Dr. HOWITT: 44.
asked the Lord President of the Council if he will direct the Medical Research Council to investigate and report upon the possibilities of the manufacture of insulin under licence and its cheaper supply in this country?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that the production of insulin has been brought to a high state of efficiency, not least in this country, and that insulin of British manufacture is available to the public here at a small fraction of the original price of ten years ago. I am advised that there is no present prospect of scientific research leading to further material decrease in the economic cost of production. As there are no longer any patent rights in the process, licences in this particular respect are not required by manufacturers.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that British insulin is being sold at 2s. per 100, and that the foreign price is 1s. 5d. with the prospect that it would come down to 1s. 3d. if the tax were removed?

Mr. BALDWIN: I should require notice of any question as to price

Mr. BERNAYS: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men, at the nearest available date, engaged in the production of insulin in Great Britain?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available

Mr. BERNAYS: Is it not a fact that not more than 100 men are involved in the production of insulin in this country?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It may be so; I do not know.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he can make any estimate of the increased cost that will fall on hospitals and institutions under the control of his Department as the result of the recent decision limiting the importation of insulin?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen recent announcements to the effect that no increase in the prices of the principal foreign supply of insulin will be made, while, as indicated in a reply given on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on 11th December, an undertaking has been given on behalf of the British makers that their prices will not be raised as a result of the new duty. Accordingly on the information at; present before him my right hon. Friend sees no reason to suppose that any increased cost will fall upon local authorities responsible for the management of hospitals, but he will keep in touch with the position.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at present the price of foreign insulin is 1s. 5d. and of British insulin 1s. 8d. to 2s.?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would not accept that as a fact;.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is there any reason why the House should not be informed of the relative prices of foreign and home-produced insulin so that the House may judge for itself?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the hon. Member will put a question down, I shall be glad to give him the information.

Wing-Commander JAMES (for Dr. O'DONOVAN): 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the recent decision to limit the importation of insulin, he will inquire into and inform this House as to the present position of the manufacture of insulin in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that British makers have for some time supplied a large part of the home demand for insulin and maintained a considerable export trade; that they now have large stocks; and that their output could be readily increased if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be able to give a day for the discussion of the question of the reform of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given to him and to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on the 13th December, and to what I said yesterday in reply to questions on this subject. Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government will continue to give the closest attention to this question with a view to upholding the usefulness and authority of the League of Nations.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this policy of secrecy is not contrary to the principles on which the League of Nations was founded, and whether it is not very detrimental to the interests of the League itself?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my right hon. Friend is mistaken in describing any policy which we are pursuing as a policy of secrecy. That is not the case.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask whether the Government have their own policy in this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have just indicated what that policy is.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not more important to reform the attitude of the delegates who attend the meetings of the League of Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR TAXES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special War taxes besides the Entertainments Duty
are still in existence; and whether he proposes to review the desirability or otherwise of maintaining such taxes at an early date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend, so far as Customs and Excise Duties are concerned, to Table 144 of the report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the year ended 31st March, 1933. So far as the Inland Revenue is concerned, the special taxes imposed for War purposes have been repealed, but it will, of course, be borne in mind that the increases in the rates of Income Tax, Sur-tax, Death Duties and Stamp Duties are, in a very real sense, War taxes. As regards the second part of the question, all taxes naturally come under review each year before the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Major OWEN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the curtailment of opportunities for social gatherings in rural areas resulting from the imposition of the Entertainments Duty, he will consider waiving the tax in the case of concerts, dramatic performances, etc., in districts where the population is less than 1,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have noted the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, but he must not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what increase has taken place in the staff of the Department of Customs, either by additions or transfers from other Departments, since 1st February, 1932?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The increase in the number of staff of the Department of Customs and Excise from all sources, from 1st January, 1932, to 1st October, 1933, the nearest dates for which figures are readily available, was 1,592.

NEW BUILDINGS, WHITEHALL.

Mr. PETHERICK: 72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the present position in regard to the selection of an
architect for the new Government building in Whitehall?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): After consideration of the recommendation of the Selection Committee appointed for the purpose, I have invited Mr. E. Vincent Harris to act as architect for the building on the terms mentioned in my reply on the 30th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Nall-Cain), and I am glad to be able to say that Mr. Harris has intimated his acceptance.

NEW BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.

Mr. H. STEWART (for Mr. GUY): 71.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he can now make any further statement with reference to the proposed scheme for new Government buildings in Edinburgh?

Mr. ORSMBY-GORE: After consideration of the recommendation of the Selection Committee appointed for the purpose, I have invited Mr. Thomas S. Tait to act as architect for the building, on the terms mentioned in my reply on the 30th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane) and I am glad to be able to say that Mr. Tait has intimated his acceptance.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: 53.
asked the Lord President of the Council the amount expended by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the purposes of their own research institutions, with its percentage to the total grant; and the amount allocated by the Department to the research associations, with its percentage to the total grant to the Department?

Mr. BALDWIN: The amount provided in the Estimates for the current year for expenditure by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the purposes of their own research institutions is £392,932 representing 76 per cent. of the total grant of the Department; the amount allocated by the Department to research associations in the same Estimates is £67,000, representing 13 per cent. of the total grant.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: 54.
asked the Lord President of the Council the amounts expended by the research associations, receiving grants from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in the last financial year on research in their own laboratories and on work passed on by them to the universities and outside research institutes, respectively, with the percentage of such expenditure in either case to the total grants made to them by the Department?

Mr. BALDWIN: The total amount expended by grant-aided research associations in their own laboratories as shown in each case by the accounts of the last financial year of the association was £226,061; and on research undertaken extra-murally, £37,910. These sums represent 350 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively of the total of the grants made by the Department to the individual associations in those years.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how anything can be 350 per cent. of the grant that is made?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think that if the hon. Member examines the figures, he will find that they are correct.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Are they gross figures or net figures, after allowing for appropriations-in-aid'!

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN JUSTICES.

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked the Attorney-General what fresh appointments are contemplated in the 164 county divisions and 31 boroughs where there is no woman magistrate, and therefore no woman eligible to serve on the new juvenile courts?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The figures given in the quesiton refer to the position on the 1st November lust. Since then 72 new women justices have been appointed, and the question of the further appointment of more women as justices specially for the work in the juvenile courts has been and is receiving the careful consideration of my Noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that it is intended gradually to appoint
women on every bench, so that the Children Act can be fully carried out, and will the hon. Gentleman represent that to the Attorney-General?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are over 20,000 men magistrates and under 2,000 women magistrates?

Oral Answers to Questions — TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DAY.

Mr. REMER: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the advantages of the 24-hour day as in general practice in most Continental countries, he will consider taking steps to adopt this system in the United Kingdom?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): In the absence of any evidence of general public demand for the change indicated, His Majesty's Government does not think it would be justified in taking any action.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS ACT (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Sir A. POWNALL: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to set up an expert committee to consider what Amendments are desirable to the Firearms Act, 1920, in the interests of public safety?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose to appoint a committee with the following terms of reference:
To consider the various types of firearms and similar weapons capable of being used for the discharge of missiles or noxious substances, and ammunition therefor, and to inquire and report whether, in the interests of public safety, any amendment of the existing law is necessary or desirable in respect of the definition or classification of such weapons and ammunition.
Sir Archibald Bodkin has consented to act as chairman of the committee, and I hope it will be possible to complete its constitution in the course of a few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH ESTATES, PADDINGTON.

Mr. GOLDIE: 60.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the amount of revenue received by them in the year 1900 from the estates in the borough of Paddington, and the amount received therefrom in the last year for which figures are available?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): The revenues received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from estates in the borough of Paddington were:

For the year ended—





£


31st March, 1900
…
…
23,700


31st March, 1933
…
…
71,800

Mr. GOLDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what this large increase is attributed?

Mr. DENMAN: I hope to the increasing wealth of the inhabitants of Paddington.

Mr. GOLDIE: 61.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether they are prepared, out of the revenues received from their property in the borough of Paddington, to make any and, if so, what financial grant to the local authority with a view to improving the housing conditions on their estate in that borough?

Mr. DENMAN: The answer is in the negative. There are no unsatisfactory housing conditions in Paddington, such as the hon. Member implies, on the estate owned and controlled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Mr. GOLDIE: May we take it, then, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners undertake no moral responsibility for the present conditions there?

Mr. DENMAN: The Commissioners take full responsibility for the houses over which they have control. They are not empowered to spend funds on other people's houses.

Miss RATHBONE: Is that the case even if they are drawing large revenues from other people's houses?

Mr. DENMAN: We do not draw large revenues from other people's houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (RAILWAYS).

Mr. MANDER: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of the conversations that took place during the late King Feisal's visit to London with regard to financial aid for the proposed railway from Bagdad to the Mediterranean?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Although certain questions in regard to
the future of the Iraqi railways in general were discussed during the late King Feisal's visit to London last summer, no decision was reached regarding the finances of the proposed railway from Bagdad to the Mediterranean.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).

Sir ALFRED BEIT: 64.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in England and Wales living more than three to a room?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of such persons enumerated at the 1931 census was 565,869. No later figures are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROWNHILLS.

67 and 68. Mrs. WARD: 66
asked the Minister of Health (1) the number of houses being built by private enterprise in the Brownhills urban area, and if these houses are to be let or for sale;
(2) if he is aware of the conditions of overcrowding in the Brownhills urban area; and if he will take steps to see that council houses to be let in future are allocated to people now living in overcrowded conditions;
(3) the number of people living in council houses in the Brownhills urban area who can be described as lower-paid workers; and how many of these tenants live in the lowest rented houses?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is aware that there are families living in overcrowded conditions in this area. The allocation of houses erected by local authorities is within the discretion of the local authority concerned, subject to observance of the requirement in Section 3 (1) (f) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, that reasonable preference shall be given to large families in letting houses provided under that Act. Fifty-one houses were completed by private enterprise in this district during the year ended 30th September last. The information in the possession of my right hon. Friend does not indicate whether these were for sale or for letting, or as to the means of the tenants.

Mrs. WARD: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a waiting list of 1,000 people for houses in this area, and what steps does he propose to take?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If the local authority is satisfied that private enterprise is not meeting the need in that district, it should apply to the Ministry of Health for permission to build unsubsidised houses.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the salary limit that the local authorities are putting on applicants for council houses is preventing a large number of people for whom they were originally built from occupying them, and will he look into it?

Mrs. WARD: Is my hon. Friend aware that the right people are not getting the council houses in this area; and will he see that the Minister's instructions are carried out?

Miss RATHBONE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the light people are not getting into the houses in any area, and what steps is he taking to see that the Minister's circular is carried out?

Oral Answers to Questions — OSTEOPATHY.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increase in the practice of osteopathy in this country; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the principles and practice of osteopathy, with a view to the protection of the public from treatment by untrained practitioners?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has considered this matter, but as indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) on the 30th November, he does not think that an inquiry on the lines suggested would serve any public interest.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the danger to the public of having unqualified practitioners in this skilful art; and does he not think it desirable that these gentleman should form their own college in order to give certificates to people whom they consider qualified to practise?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I do not know of any more harm to the public in allowing the practice of osteopathy than there is by allowing the practice of unqualified medical practitioners. That is the present position of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENSINGTON GARDENS (REFRESH- MENT ROOMS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 70.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, on the completion of the new refreshment rooms in Kensington Gardens, it is proposed that they should be licensed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the catering contractors wish to apply to the Sessions for the grant of a licence for the sale of alcoholic liquors, to be served with meals only, I propose to raise no objection.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Bishop of Kensington what he thinks, and also consult the parents of the children who use Kensington Gardens?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the subject of the recent conversations between the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the High Commissioner for South Africa has been announced; and whether the conclusions on the matter are being published?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am informed by Sir Herbert Stanley that during his return by the air route to South Africa the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia came to greet him at Bulawayo and that they had a few minutes' friendly and informal conversation at the aerodrome. I understand that the conversation was confined to some local administrative matters of common interest to Southern Rhodesia and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and that no question of general policy was raised or made the subject of any conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

PHYSICAL TRAINING CENTRE, CARDIFF.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS (for Mr. JOHN): 55.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the House full details of the physical training classes for unemployed in Cardiff?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should like to take this opportunity of denying the mischievous statements published in certain organs of the Press that a refusal or disinclination to join such a course has
some effect on a claim to benefit or transitional payments. These statements are absolutely without foundation.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in communication with any of the officials of Cardiff since he gave me an answer on Thursday last, and does he now assert again that the men who refused to come under this training scheme were not refused benefit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir; this morning I received information from my representatives at Cardiff, and they tell me that such assertions are absolutely without foundation.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that, even supposing they refused to go to the training centres, they are not cut off at the Employment Exchange?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That question arises on another point. The question on the Paper deals with physical training centres.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Minister say which papers were responsible for the misrepresentation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Following is the reply:

The Physical Training Centre which is to be opened at Cardiff on 1st January, 1934, will be the latest of a number of such centres which the Department has been conducting since June, 1932, in selected areas of heavy unemployment where little or no physical training facilities exist, with a view to counteracting some of the ill effects on the young men of prolonged and enforced leisure. The centres have been generally welcomed and the increased provision of such facilities by voluntary agencies is perhaps to be attributed to some extent to this success.

Wherever possible, Ministry of Labour Physical Training Classes have been held in properly equipped gymnasia belonging to institutions such as the Y.M.C.A., Boys' Clubs, University Settlements, etc., but where, as in this case, such facilities have not been available, resort has been had to dance halls, territorial drill halls, school rooms, etc.

The Cardiff Centre, like previous centres, will be open to any wholly un-
employed young man between 18-30 years of age. There will be no compulsion to attend and no penalty will be imposed on any man who drops out during the course. A suitable kit consisting of vest, shorts and gymnasium shoes will be issued free of charge to each man, who, if his attendance throughout has been satisfactory, will be allowed to retain the vest and shorts at the conclusion of the course. The men will be required to sign a declaration of physical fitness to undertake the course, and in doubtful cases arrangements will be made by the Department for the men to be medically examined before being accepted.

The course will last for 12 weeks, and by providing each day for one-hour classes for 30 men and arranging for attendance on alternate days, it will be possible to provide training for 240 men. The syllabus will consist of progressive physical training exercises, including Swedish drill, talks on matters relating to physical training, hygiene, etc., and appropriate games where practicable.

The instructor will be Mr. Albert Brooks an ex-Service man who has acted for the Department in this capacity at similar centres, at Pontypridd, Merthyr, and Tonypandy.

DISTRESSED AREAS (GLAMORGAN AND MONMOUTH).

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. G. HALL): 69.
asked the Minister of Health what benefit will accrue to the counties of Glamorgan and Monmouth and the county boroughs in those counties as the result of the recent concession given to the distressed areas under the Unemployment Bill?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The special grants which will be paid to the county councils of Glamorgan and Monmouth and the county borough council of Merthyr Tydfil in respect of the current financial year are estimated to amount to £66,722, £16,210 and £9,960 respectively. Under the recent concession the yearly contributions of these councils under the Unemployment Bill will be reduced by 60 per cent. of these amounts. The special grants are not payable to the other county borough councils in these counties.

Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the Department are now making any differ-
ence in the allocation of the £300,000, as was done with the £400,000?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I desire notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the law with regard to the enforcement of enactments prohibiting the use in Scotland of the methods of fishing known as beam and otter trawling, and to the penalties that may be imposed in Scotland for other offences in connection with sea fisheries; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 29th January, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Thames Conservancy River Improvement) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to make provision for payment of remuneration to registered, medical practitioners and hospitals for emergency treatment rendered to persons injured through the use of motor vehicles on roads and in places to which the public have access." [Road Traffic (Emergency Treatment) Bill [Lords.]

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIM).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Unemployment Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) Committee Stage.

Fourteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill and to the proceedings on any Instructions relating thereto, and the proceedings on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column for that day.

TABLE.—Committee Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First day
Proceedings on Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2
7.30


Clauses 3 to 5
11.0


Second day
Clauses 6 and 7
7.30


Clauses 8 to 10
11.0


Third day
Clause 11
7.30


Clause 12
11.0


Fourth day
Clauses 13 and 14
7.30


Clauses 15 and 16
11.0


Fifth day
Clauses 17 and 18
7.30


Clauses 19 to 33
—


Sixth day
Clauses 19 to 33
7.30


Clause 34
—


Seventh day
Clause 34
7.30


Clauses 35 and 36
—


Eight day
Clauses 35 and 36
7.30


Clauses 37 and 38
—


Ninth day
Clauses 37 and 38
7.30


Clauses 39 to 42
11.0


Tenth day
Clauses 43 to 49
11.0


Eleventh day
Clauses 50 to 63
11.0


Twelfth day
New Clauses
11.0


Thirteenth day
First Schedule
7.30


Second to Fourth Schedules
11.0


Fourteenth day.
Fifth Schedule
7.30



Sixth to Eighth Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion
11.30

(2) Report Stage and Third Reading

Four allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on the last of those allotted days.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After the day on which this Order is passed, any day, other than a Friday, on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day, and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a Second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendment new Clauses, or Schedules), and any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded and, in the case of Government Amendments, or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made, or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to proceedings on the Bill or under this Order, nor Motion that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause or to recommit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
1131
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, if any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."—[The Prime Minister.]

3.48 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): In speaking to this Motion I have to fall back upon the explanation which is always being quoted from the speeches of Leaders of all parties who have addressed the House from this Box on a similar occasion. The fact of the matter is that every party is now committed to adopting a time-table for the purpose of faciliating the passage of every Bill of importance which is taken on the Floor of the House. I will take that for granted. This practice has been forced upon every Government, Liberal, Labour and Conservative, as well as ourselves, because it is the duty of every Government to provide as far as possible for two things in connection with the transaction of business in this House. The first is that with a Bill like the Unemployment Bill which is now before us an opportunity should be given to the House to discuss every important point in the Bill, and to see to it that no important point is hidden by the moving of unregulated closures or in the hastening of business. The other point is that Debate should not be prolonged so that the time of the House is so occupied as to prevent later in the Session important, and it may even be essential, business from being considered. If the House applies those two tests to the time-table I am now moving I think there will be general agreement that the Government have secured both objects, so far as it is possible under the circumstances.
First, let me remind the House of what time has been taken and is to be taken by this Bill. The Second Reading occupied three days and the Money Resolution one day and part of an all-night sitting, so the general principles and the general finance of the Bill have already occupied four days. It is upon this time-table which I have presented that we propose to allot 14 days to the Committee stage and four further days to the Report stage and Third Reading.
That is a total of 22 Government days assigned to the business regarding this Bill.
I notice that there is an Amendment on the Order Paper to-day to the effect that there should be more than four days for the Third Reading and the Report stage, and that all provisions for these two stages should disappear from the time-table which I am now presenting. We cannot agree to that. It is only fair for the House to know what time the Government believe they can afford for the full discussion of this Bill through all its stages. I want, however, to make two observations. One is that the Government do not propose to do more than to declare the total time that it proposes to devote to the Report stage and the Third Reading. Where the Guillotine will fall during those four days the Government wish to leave an open question. As we go on with our Committee consideration, this point, that point and the other point that may be unforeseen at the moment, will crop up and be of importance. Therefore, as soon as the Committee stage finishes, it will be necessary for the House to consider further the apportionment of the four days assigned to the Report stage and the Third Reading. Through the usual channels, hearty co-operation will be asked in order that these four days may be properly apportioned.
The second point that I want to mention goes a little further than that. It is impossible to give a definite pledge, but if the Debate upon the Committee stage indicates that, say, another day, a fifth day, could be advantageously used by the House in considering the Report stage and the Third Reading, we would be disposed to grant it. I want to emphasise what I have said, but that is not a pledge to be binding. It will depend upon how the other business which we regard as essential business is progressing in the meantime.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Blackmail.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not in the same category as blackmail. In this case, we want to give the House the greatest facility possible, consistent with the transaction of other essential business, so that this Bill will receive the
most thorough consideration that it possibly can have, in view of the time at our disposal.
As regards how the block of time of 22 or 23 days may be used, I think that if hon. Members will look at the details of the time-table and notice where the various sections are divided, they will find that, by the division proposed, a reasonable opportunity will be given to raise almost every one of the questions that have occupied a considerable amount of time during the Debates on the Second Reading and the Financial Resolution. I may go further and say that in regard to this time-table we have done our best to get into touch with all the sections of the House. The proposal that we now: make is far more in the nature of co-operative suggestion than a Government decision. I am pleased at the success that has attended the attempts to get these time-tables very largely agreed upon before they are put upon the Order Paper. The Government simply stands stiff—[Interruption.]—that seems a great discovery to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—upon the time-table allotted to the Bill. The Government are perfectly willing, having given 22 or 23 days to the discussion to get this Bill through the House, to give the Opposition, or anybody interested, an opportunity of deciding where they would like the various compartments to be divided. If there is any point which they want for discussion, we have gone to them, and we have told them that we are willing to make the division as near to that point as possible, so that it will be one of the early stages discussed after the Closure has fallen upon the section before. I believe that more care has been taken to make this time-table a fair one, and to comply with all reasonable demands as to how sections should be made up than has been taken in considering any other. I therefore hope that it will be regarded as a reasonable time-table, and as a fair division of the time allotted to the Bill.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: When we learned that there was to be a time-table on this Bill, we took part in discussions, through the usual channels, as to the allocation of time between the different Clauses, but that had to be done within the limits laid down by the Government. That did
not mean at all that we accept the Motion, or that we accept the amount of time given. The Prime Minister said that he would not go into any of the usual discussions about the principle. I do not want to follow the idea that it is necessary on a Motion of this kind to make exciting speeches, because we know that all Governments do this sort of thing from time to time. I am prepared to admit that the forms of this House want a considerable amount of reformation in order that we may get a proper discussion upon every important detail of a Bill.
There is a very unusual feature about this Motion. Previously, we have had time-tables on Finance Bills and on the Import Duties Bill. The particular reason for putting forward a time-table in those cases was that the Bill had to be got through by a certain date. I am not aware that there is any consideration of that sort with regard to this Bill. This is the only piece of the Government's programme, so far as I know, that requires a time-table. The rest is practically empty of any other proposal, and I am not aware that this Bill has to get through by a fixed date. On the Committee stage of a Bill, it would be a good thing that there should be discussion and arrangements with regard to the allocation of time, but the Government are in a position to enforce upon the minority such time-table as they want.
We oppose this time-table. We do not think that there is any evidence that it is required. We do not know what else the Government have to propose of any importance during this Session, and we see no reason why there should not be the fullest discussion on this Bill. The second reason is that this is a Bill which affects intimately the lives of all the workers of this country. The discussions we have had already show the immense amount of detail in the provisions, and there must be inevitably a very large amount of discussion by Members on all sides of the House, because the Bill touches different categories of workers at so many points. We do not think that a Bill of this kind can be dealt with rigidly by a time-table like this, because it is not possible to see exactly the result of the discussions, and how much time will be needed. One can only get an approximate idea. This Bill, of all
Bills, is a difficult one for a time-table. On a Bill which deals with things, such as an Electricity Bill, it is far easier to get a time-table, and to see where the most important Debates will take place, but on a Bill which deals with personnel it is far more difficult. Again and again, in discussions of this kind, one has found that a point which at first seemed small, has become extremely important.
We find in the table that the time for bringing discussion to a close is 11 o'clock. I should like to know why that hour is taken, instead of 10.30. I agree that it gives half an hour extra. On the Import Duties Bill we stopped each night at 10.30. There may be one, two, three or four Divisions, and very likely more. That takes us on well past 11 o'clock, and for a long period of time private Members will have practically no opportunity of raising any matter after 11 o'clock, for the time will already have been taken. The second feature is the great length of the proceedings because it is a very long Bill. For the Import Duties Bill, a comparatively short Measure, five days were allotted. Here 14 days are allotted, that is, leaving out the Report stage and the Third Reading. It is to be discussed at a time when days are taken up with Private Members' Motions, and for a very long period it will be practically impossible for any private Member to raise any matter of importance. Further, should any emergency happen—and the world is full of emergencies just now—by the provisions here it will not be possible to get an Adjournment to discuss any matter at 7.30, it has to come on after the termination of the proceedings under this Motion. That means that important matters will not come on until somewhere about 12 o'clock.
I do not know exactly what is to be the allocation of these days to any particular week, but by this provision the Government are doing something far more than regulating discussions on this Bill. They are regulating the discussions of this House for a very long period. It is not only the Opposition that they are restricting. They are cutting into the rights of private Members. It is a proposal to take the time of the House, apart from those days allotted to Bills of private Members, but anything else that may occur, where a Member wants to bring anything forward in the interests of
his constituency, he will be practically debarred. This is by far the most drastic time-table that we have had brought in. I was glad to see that the Prime Minister allows a certain fluidity in his proposals in regard to the Report stage. We have Amendments on the Paper to cut out altogether the proposals relating to the Report stage. The reason is obvious. Until you have been through Committee, you cannot tell how much you have to do on Report.
We have had some experience in this Parliament of how much amendment of Government Bills is needed. The House will remember the Road Traffic Bill and the Transport Bill, the masses of Amendments that came down from the other place and the masses of Amendments on Report. In a very complicated Bill like this, almost two Bills in one, consisting very largely of references to other Acts, unless there is to be no real examination by the House—by "real examination" I mean examination leading to the acceptance of Amendments—anyone who has had experience of Committees on a large Bill like this knows that if there have been Amendments accepted, if there have been promises of reconsideration by Ministers, there must inevitably be a large amount to be done on the Report stage, and, therefore, I think it would be extraordinarily ill-advised to try to tie the House down at this stage. I do not see any reason for it. Towards the end of the Committee stage the Government will be in a position to know much better than now, exactly what time they want for other matters, and perhaps they will also be in a position to know what time is wanted by other Members of this House. Therefore, I think it would be better for the allocation of time in the subsequent stages to be left to a later period.
We intend to oppose this Bill, and we are not in the least inclined to assist the Government by assenting to this Motion. We think that the Bill will become more unpopular the more it is considered, and, therefore, this Notice of Motion setting up an elaborate time-table, before even the discussion on the Bill has begun in Committee, is a sign that the Government feel that there will be opposition in every quarter to the provisions of the Bill. They have noticed, probably, the growing objections from every part of the House, and they are taking time by the
forelock to bring in a time-table to restrict debate. We do not think that the 14 days allowed will give sufficient time for bringing out the very many points of this Bill which must be fully discussed, because every Member knows how vitally they affect the lives of his own constituents. I would imagine that the number of Members taking part in the Debates on this Bill will be very large, and, looking at this time-table, I am afraid that, so far from it getting all the principal points fully discussed, at 11 o'clock or 7.30 there will be rushed through a mass of important Amendments and Clauses that have not been fully considered. We shall, therefore, oppose this Motion.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: On behalf of those who sit on these benches, I am not suggesting that we have any fine frenzy of indignation against the procedure of this time-table. It is now a regrettable but necessary procedure, and, with regard to this particular timetable, we have to acknowledge freely that there have been consultations for which we are very grateful. One could wish that this procedure were not left to emergency, or rather haphazard, arrangements at the last moment, and that there could be in the machinery of this House some arrangement for putting it on a satisfactory and permanent basis. But we have to take the practice as it now stands, and I sincerely hope that this time-table will work out satisfactory. It is impossible to say at the present moment whether it will or will not. We have to remember that this is rather an unusually constituted House with a very large majority, and certain Oppositions rather small in numbers. It is obvious that under these proceedings a time-table can be very largely abused—I say can be, but I hope will not be, by the majority. It is possible for the majority, once they have got their time-table, to realise that it does not matter whether the time is spent in unimportant Amendments, so that the most important Amendments are crowded out without discussion.
That is a matter for the good sense of this House, and I trust that the Patronage Secretary will exercise his influence to see that the time-table is not abused in that way. It will make a vast difference to the feeling to this House and to the country as to whether ample discus-
sion has been allowed. It is not settled by the 14 days allotted to Committee. It depends very largely on the way in which the 14 days are used—on the proper use of them. Every part of this House has its own responsibility, which, I hope, it will remember. For ourselves, our attitude must be, on the main question, the same as that which has been announced from the bench above the Gangway. We are opposed to this Bill, not merely on minor points, but on major questions of principle which we outlined on Second Reading. In those circumstances, it would be improper for us to tie our hands by giving any facilities whatever for passing a, Measure in which we do not believe. For that reason, and that reason only, we shall record our vote in the Division Lobby.

4.13 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Not being one of the parties consulted in this matter, and, I may add, having no reason to be consulted, I did rather wonder, when the Prime Minister said that every shade of opinion in the House had been consulted, whether, in point of fact, any of the Government supporters were asked. I take it that they were, as I have had no reply.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): It is the custom to consult with the Minister of Labour and with the Opposition parties. It is perfectly true that individuals on both sides are not consulted, but the Minister of Labour would realise which were the most important points of discussion, and I acted very largely upon his suggestions.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am much obliged to the Patronage Secretary, because he puts the matter perfectly clearly, and fully justifies my intervention. Unemployment Insurance Bills, whatever may be the histories of other Bills, have a very curious history with regard to the opposition generated against them. On the 1924 Bill the right hon. Gentleman who now sits for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) found that the most intelligent opposition came, not from the Socialist party, but from hon. Members who sat here, led largely by the hon. Member who is now, very properly, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and when the Bill was introduced there was
no idea, I think, in the Government's mind that it was from this quarter that opposition was to come. When Miss Bondfield was Minister of Labour in the time of the present Prime Minister, the most intelligent opposition certainly came from the then Opposition benches, but the most clamorous, vociferous, and long-winded opposition came from the representatives of the Clyde—from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and their comrades who have fallen by the wayside. In that case again, when the Bill was introduced, the Government never realised that there was going to be such a great weight of opposition from behind them. I do not necessarily say that that is going to be the case in regard to this Bill, but the fact remains that a great deal of agitation—with which I am not in the least concerned—about the distressed areas has boiled up around here. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) has never ceased making speeches on the subject, and, incidentally, he has largely got his way. For all that I know, similar agitations may arise during the passage of this Bill, but, so far from its being in the mind of the Patronage Secretary, he has not attempted in any way, from what he has told the House, to consult any of the vast body of his supporters. That seems to me to be a very serious blemish with regard to this time-table.
I heard the Prime Minister say just now that every party was committed to a time-table for every Bill of importance. I bow to his judgment on the question, but I find very little evidence of that fact. It is true that different parties have used the time-table, but it seems to have escaped the notice of at any rate some people that since we last had a time-table in this House there has been a Select Committee on Procedure. The hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary for Mines was the Chairman of that Committee, and he wrote and presented, not to an old Parliament, but to this very Parliament, a report with recommendations as to how we should deal with this problem. That seems to have gone like water off a duck's back so far as the arranging of this time-table is concerned. I do not wish to go through all the recommendations that the Secretary for Mines and his Committee made, but they made
the definite assertion that the Kangaroo was far better than the Guillotine. That was their first assertion, because, they said, there was always a sense of grievance generated by the Guillotine; there were always likely to be Amendments not discussed and Clauses passed right over. They recommended that, if there must be a Guillotine, an expert Committee should be set up to decide on the allocation of the time; and, if that were done, I imagine that the patient supporters of the Government would have some place on such an expert Committee.
Moreover, it is actually stated in the report that it was an understood thing that the Government consulted the Opposition and other Members specially interested in a Bill, but in this case, according to the Patronage Secretary, other Members have been omitted. There are so many of them that I cannot blame him for that, but I do put it to the House that, when a Select Committee on Procedure has been set up and has made valuable recommendations with regard to this and various other matters of procedure, it is rather discouraging to them, not to mention anyone else who is interested in these matters, and wants to see Bills properly discussed, that, although the report is there, and although evidence was taken from everybody who was capable of giving evidence—from the leaders of parties, from the Prime Minister, from you yourself, Mr. Speaker, and from representatives of every shade of opinion, even including Professor Ramsay Muir and Commander Ken-worthy—we find that no attention whatever is paid to their recommendations. I think that that is a pity, because the situation as regards time-tables as a whole is now quite different.
The Prime Minister also said that the great advantage of a time-table was that it gave the opportunity to discuss every important point. Opportunity must be given, he said, to discuss every important point. Of course, that is the ideal, but if he would take it from me—I do not suppose he would—it is the last thing that the time-table necessarily does, because a good many Members of the House have it very much in mind that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made his reputation by the way in which he entirely failed to deal with any point at ail of the
Finance Bill under a time-table. Time and again, when we were discussing the Land Tax, we would put to him from those benches conundrum after conundrum, not to trip him up, but to ask what the Bill meant; and time and again the hon. and learned Gentleman got up somewhere about 10 o'clock and talked for half an hour without answering any of the points. Then the Guillotine feli, and the Opposition—and I come back to this point—felt under a sense of grievance. I do not expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman's present colleagues will do anything of that sort, but it does indicate that there are possibilities, as the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has said, of grave abuse in the time-table system.
For that reason I think that, if the House will really reflect with a view to giving a completely impartial decision on this matter, it will agree with the Select Committee on Procedure that the system by which Amendments can be selected, and by which the Closure can be granted by the Chairman as soon as he thinks it is necessary, is a much more satisfactory way of dealing with a complicated Bill, the details of the Debates on which cannot possibly be foreseen now. How often we have found, in the discussions on long and complicated Measures, that when the Chairman of the Committee has put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," some hon. Member has asked, "What does line 4 mean?" and it has suddenly been discovered that line 4, or whatever it may be, meant something quite different from what everybody thought it meant, and really raised a point of considerable importance. Under a time-table all possibility of elucidating anything of that kind is lost, because the experience is that Clause after Clause has to go through without a word of discussion. There is a slight safeguard in the case of the present Bill, because I take it from what the Prime Minister said that it is very unlikely that the Bill is a Money Bill, and, therefore, it is possible that points which may have escaped the notice of this House may be dealt with in another place, which is not the case with Finance Bills. Even so, however, that is a comparatively small safeguard, because it must be admitted on general grounds that Members of the other House cannot possibly have the intimate know-
ledge that we here have, through having constituents who are naturally concerned with every phrase and word of the Measure. I think it really is testing the supporters of the Government a little hard that, before the Bill has been debated at all in Committee, we should have a Guillotine Motion of this kind.
It may very well be—it is not inconceivable—that 14 days will be too much, because I think that under all these Motions, if a day has been allotted, it has to be filled up, and if there is too much time one can only say what a pity it is to have wasted any. After all, the present Opposition are hampered by their very small numbers, while the supporters of the Government do not wish to go out of their way to be obstructive and tiresome, but only to raise points which they consider to be of real importance. There are many loyal supporters of the Government who will continue to support the Bill in its general outlines, unpopular though some of its provisions may be, and we do feel that it is difficult to vote for this Motion when there is so very little reason to suppose that any obstruction to the Bill will come from any quarter at all, and when the whole object of the House is to be what the Prime Minister himself invited it to be in by-gone times—a Council of State to help him with one of the most difficult problems of social reform with which we are likely to be faced in our time. For that reason, while I would not dream of voting against the Government on an issue of this kind, I certainly cannot find myself in the Lobby with them.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I think the Government are rather unwise in introducing a Guillotine Motion on this Bill at such an early stage. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that it would have been better to see first how the proceedings went on, and then possibly bring forward a Guillotine Motion on the basis of the time that had already been taken. When I first looked at the present Motion, I was inclined to think that the allocation of time was a fairly good one, but after that I examined the Bill itself, and also the Amendments which have been put down, not merely by Members of the Opposition parties, but by Members in all quarters of the House, with a view to trying to
amend the Bill from their point of view. Naturally, we on these benches are against the Bill, and shall do all that we can to bring in certain Amendments. It may be interesting to the House to know that the total number of Amendments on the Order Paper is 187, and a large number of these, no doubt, will be accepted.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There are many more to be put down yet.

Mr. TINKER: As time goes on, other Amendments, no doubt, will be put down on points arising later. I myself have examined the Bill closely in order to see if other Amendments could be put down for its improvement, and it is quite possible that eventually the number of Amendments may be double what it is now. Then there are 11 new Clauses and 45 Amendments to the Schedules, so that the grand total of Amendments, new Clauses, and Amendments to the Schedules is now 243. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) appears to be determined to do a little talking on the matter, and a good deal of time will no doubt be taken up by him in discussing these various Amendments, because, despite what he has said with regard to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), there is nobody better able than he is himself to do what he said the hon. and learned Member did. He is one of the best at it in the House, and I always like listening to him, because I admire the way in which he can do it. He need not, however, condemn anyone else for talking a long while and saying very little; he can do that as well as anybody.
This Bill is probably the greatest Bill that has been before any Parliament for many years, and, when once it is settled, it will control for a long time those people who are unemployed. I think the Government would be well advised to give as much time to it as possible. I should like to make one suggestion to the Patronage Secretary. The new Clauses are 11 in number, and only one day in Committee is being given to them—the 12th day. I would ask the Patronage Secretary to be elastic on that point. If it is found that those Clauses have any substance in them at all, might we not ask that an extra day should be given to
them before the Report stage? In a matter like this it would be well to get the good will of the Opposition, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to take up a hard-and-fast attitude and say that we must be tied down to 14 days, if during the proceedings it is found that more time is necessary for legitimate discussion on the Bill. If we can satisfy the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary that our criticisms are directed to improving the Bill and that we are not able to get through the Clauses in the time allotted, they ought to be able to add another day or two. If that were done, much of the opposition to the Motion would disappear.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: When I first came to the House I thought it was a pity when I saw Motions of this, kind on the Paper, because they must tend to restrict discussion, but I had not been here very long before I came to the opinion, which I believe is shared by many back benchers, that the institution of such a Motion actually results in fairer consideration of the Bill as a whole than proceedings in Committee without it. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that we have now reached the stage when, if a very complicated and highly controversial Bill is to be taken in Committee of the whole House, a Motion of this kind will become a regular part of our procedure. We have to face the alternative, which is a series of all-night sittings, which are bad for the Members and bad for the work that they try to do. In my view, however, the Government are not the proper people to draw up the time-table. The Prime Minister to-day used a very significant phrase—"all the time the Government believe they can afford. 'It seems to me that in drawing up a Motion of this kind the consideration should be what time is necessary for a proper discussion of the Bill. Obviously, those two ideas would not necessarily produce the same number of days for consideration of the Bill.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) has referred to a suggestion made by the Committee on Procedure, that matters of this kind should be taken out of the hands of the Government and placed in the hands of a Committee appointed for that purpose. I hope very
much that some such form of procedure will be adopted. The idea that I have in my mind is a Committee of whom one should be yourself, Sir, to preside, one should be the Chairman of Ways and Means and one the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means. Other Members would be the Prime Minister, the Chief Government Whip, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip. We should thus have seven Members all familiar with the ordering of the business of the House and capable of expressing a valuable opinion on the amount of time that should be given to particular parts of a Measure. When I say the Leader of the Opposition, I mean the Leader of the official Opposition.
I would not suggest that any Member of the House, however personally distinguished, who can gather round him a handful out of 600 Members to share his own views should be entitled to direct representation upon such a Committee. That would mean that you would have a small but energetic group, such as the Clyde group, or different sections of the Liberal party, drifting uneasily about the Chamber and directly represented on this Committee. Those Members themselves would be the first to admit that it is a great advantage to a Member who wants to take part in debate if he forms one of a small and well-defined group, because whoever presides over our deliberations is anxious to get a variety of opinion expressed, and, therefore, a Member who belongs to a small and well-defined group finds it much more easy to get called than a Member of a big party. If anyone doubts that, he has only to turn at the end of a Session to the records of Members' speeches and he will see how Members representing small groups have an opportunity—and use it—of taking a larger share of the time of the House than individual Members of the larger party. Therefore, on the Committee that I have outlined what was felt to be fair in the interests of the big parties would prove to be fair in the interests of the small. After all, the actual protection of a small minority in this House is a matter for the Chair, and it would not need any special representation of this kind to ensure it.
The appointment of such a committee would accomplish two things. If the Government of the day desired to bring
forward a Motion of this kind, they would go before the Committee and say, "We wish for a Motion in respect of this Bill," and the committee would have power to refuse or to grant it. If in their opinion a time-table Motion was not necessary it would not be granted. If, on the other hand, they agreed that it was suitable and proper in the circumstances, they would proceed to draw it up, and it would then be brought before the House for the House to accept or reject. I would not suggest that it should be debatable. Probably the best part of the day is lost when a time-table Motion is brought in, and that time would be saved.
To my mind, these questions of procedure have an importance far beyond the comfort of individual Members, beyond even the arranging in a convenient and proper way for the discussion of the matters that come before us. They affect the prestige of Parliament, and that is a very precious thing. I think it is not asking too much to ask the Government to consider carefully the recommendations of this Committee on Procedure to see whether something cannot be brought forward which will commend itself to the common sense and sense of fairness of Members of all parties as a reasonable and tolerable way of getting out of our difficulties so that we shall not always have, as at present we are bound to have, the Government coming forward and offering something, the Opposition saying it is not enough, and each party thinking the other unreasonable. I hope that out of this Debate may come an intention and desire on the part of the Government to do something so that we shall not again be faced with a similar Motion drawn up and brought before us in the same way.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I believe the great charm which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) uses in addressing the House obscures the force of the criticism that he has levelled against the Motion. I believe he is correct in describing the position as one that affects the House of Commons as a whole and not separate parties in the House. Of course, Members on all sides will naturally expect Members on these benches to oppose a Motion of this description as part of their ordinary opposition duties,
but I believe many Members who, perhaps, have not had the good fortune of seeing the House handle a large Bill in Committee will not be able to realise fully the extent to which the mood of the House changes when it starts its Committee work. To a very large extent, if it is a major Bill, acrimonies and party differences are subdued. It is one of the glories of the Parliamentary institution that such a change of atmosphere takes place. Hon. Members will, perhaps, not sufficiently appreciate that what is actually happening now is not a conflict between the Opposition and Government supporters, but a conflict between the House of Commons and the Executive. The House is now being regarded by the Government as their natural enemy. They do not merely want to suppress the Opposition. They want to curtail the opportunities of Debate for the House as a whole. For anyone who has any respect for Parliamentary government this is a very serious situation.
I believe the House is now doing a very silly and stupid thing. I do not agree with the point of view that has been expressed on my left, and almost expressed immediately in front of me, that the Guillotine has now been used so long as an instrument in Parliamentary discussion that it ought to be accepted as part of the normal procedure. It is an awkward and silly instrument. It is merely a stupid half-way house between government by decree and government by discussion. The principle underlying Parliamentary discussion is that the impingement of mind upon mind and intelligence upon intelligence stimulates men's minds. I have seen it happen over and over again that Members get up from one side or the other and make a suggestion or a criticism which enlists the support of the whole House and illumines a part of the Bill which was formerly dim and does really good work. Just at the very point when perhaps, the Debate is starting to be vital the Guillotine falls. There has never been a discussion under the Guillotine which has been a vital Debate. It is devitalised from the very beginning. Hon. Members might give a little serious attention to this point and ask themselves how far this sort of thing is devitalising the whole of our Parliamentary procedure.
I agree profoundly with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough that the Chair possesses already adequate means of preventing obstruction. It is true that there has been rather dilatory speaking in the House on certain occasions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) suggested that unless we had some such means of guillotining discussion all night sittings would become the order. All night sittings will never become the order; they always cure themselves. There is nothing which cures the appetite for all night sittings like the morning after the night before. There is no danger at all, if you do not have the Guillotine, that the Opposition will keep the Government up all night. The pressure of public business, and the extraordinary mass of work which a Member of Parliament has to transact make it impossible for him to stay up night after night in this Chamber. It is absurd.
Hon. Members ought to allow their minds to be governed by the realities of Parliamentary discussion and not by sensation writers in the Press. It is the practice in the general Press to deal flippantly and sensationally with incidents in the House of Commons, and to represent to the country that the House of Common's is engaged day after day in silly and obstructionist talk, when, as a matter of fact—and indeed for 90 per cent. of its time—the House is engaged in sober and serious discussion of the nation's difficulties. That fact is represented in the point of view of all parties. It is absurd for hon. Members to allow themselves to be influenced by the yellow Press and to say that, because some person has read out something from a newspaper, or because another person has made an hour's speech on one occasion, we must have the guillotine of this discussion. I suggest to the Government that they have lost their sense of humour. There is no need for them to bring forward a Guillotine Motion in these circumstances. We have 50 Members, there are three hon. Members over there and I do not know how many Members crossed the floor the other day, but there might be 30 Members there, and we are one of the smallest Oppositions in the history of Parliament.
The Bill is a first-class Measure and a most complicated one; one of the most
complicated which we have ever seen. When we come to Part II we shall start discussing administrative machinery which will involve no political partisanship of any kind. The House of Commons will want to devote itself to it with great earnestness, and Members who have had long periods of service on local governing bodies will want to pool their knowledge and try and improve the stupid machinery of the Bill. I use the word "stupid," not as a Socialist, but because it is representative of the point of view of many Members belonging to all parties. What chance shall we have under the Guillotine? I agree with the hon. and gallant Member again, that we may not want all the time. It will be for the Opposition to take all the time, although on certain vital matters in the Bill we shall not have adequate time at all.
The Government have the situation well in hand. They know that they can always bring in the Guillotine, whatever they want to do. There is no need to do it at this stage. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member said, that the Government are not so much afraid of the Opposition as they are of the weaknesses which the discussions might disclose among their own supporters. That is the position. Backed as they are by an overwhelming and, to a very large extent, docile majority, the Government turn a deaf ear entirely to what is said from these benches. That fact has been illustrated over and over again in the discussions on the Money Resolution. Speech after speech was made from these benches, to which the Front Bench returned no answer at all, but when a speech was delivered in more ambiguous terms from the benches opposite there was an immediate concession. That is natural. A Government always succumbs to an appeal from its own supporters. It does not succumb to the Opposition. It is always afraid of loss of strength among its own following. The possibility is, not that the hon. Members belonging to the Conservative party will be able to find holes in the Bill, but that we may be able to find holes into which they will fall, and they desire to curtail discussion in this way.
What will be the point of view of the country in this matter? Hon. Members really are suffering from the complacency which usually falls upon hon. Members
when they imagine that the elections are a long distance away. What will be the feeling of the country on the Guillotine? First of all, in regard to a Bill which is very important and revolutionary in its interference with democratic privileges the Government are to use the Guillotine for the purpose of crushing out a small minority, who are numerically insignificant and would be unable to flick a fly off the nose of the Minister of Labour if they wanted to do so. The conclusion of the country will be that the Conservative majority is outlawing the small Opposition and suppressing Parliamentary discussion. That will be the conclusion, and it will be the correct one. I wish that the House could have an early opportunity of discussing this matter in the absence of any particular Bill, because when you have such a Bill the passions of the House are involved in their natural partisanships.
The hon. Members who support the Government will walk into the Division Lobby in favour of the Guillotine Motion because they are substantially in agreement with the Bill. They will think that this is the most effective way of getting the Bill through quickly and of gagging our discussion. If the House of Commons could discuss this matter in the absence of any measure, I believe that it would be found that the consensus of opinion would be that the Guillotine is a barbarous instrument and an outrage on legislation by discussion. It is moving away from the Athenian market place into a very rigid imposition of majority rule. Are we to de-vitalise the House of Commons and put nothing in its place, or are we to preserve the vitality of Parliamentary discussion, which—although perhaps a good deal of time is very often wasted—has made this House the best sounding board in the world and ultimately has produced perhaps as good legislation as any other form of dictatorial methods.

4.55 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: If it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for West Midldesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), I should not have intervened in this Debate. I think I am right in saying, that he supported in a way the principle of the Guillotine, but he finished his speech by saying that, because he did not like the Bill, or portions of the Bill, he proposed to oppose the imposition of
a time-table. But I do not wish to have any misunderstanding or to cast a silent vote on this occasion, because I have already criticised the Bill on the Second Reading. Consequently, as I intend to vote for the Motion to set up a time-table, I want it to be clearly understood that I dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, namely, that because you do not approve of the Bill you should perforce vote against the principle of a time-table. There are two abuses which might result from a time-table. An abuse may come from the Government in that any criticisms made on the Bill might result in no answer being given to those criticisms. As a matter of fact, that position occurred on the Second Reading of the Bill to my criticisms, and I hope that during the Committee stage I shall receive an answer from the Minister on the criticisms which I made. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary had great difficulty in dealing with the whole of the measure in the time allotted to him, and I therefore appreciate the reason why he did not deal with my criticisms at that time. That is one of the possible abuses which might take place as the result of a time-table. There is the other possibility of abuse of the Opposition. The Opposition might easily take certain things, which one might describe as their particular pigeon, and might go on discussing the particular Amendments ad nauseam and not get to the important Amendments which might be moved by Members on the Government side of the House.

Mr. TINKER: Would it not also apply the other way; might not the Government take up the time?

Sir W. BRASS: I have already said that there are two kinds of abuse: one the abuse of the Government and the other the abuse of the Opposition. Taking the whole thing together, and, having seen many time-tables introduced in the 11 years during which I have been in this House, a time-table is not really a bad thing. When there is give-and-take on both sides of the House, important Amendments get properly discussed both by the Government and the Opposition, and the result is that we get a better Bill by having a time-table than we should get if we did not have one. That
is the conclusion to which I have come after listening to Bills discussed under a time-table both with my party in office and in Opposition. For that reason, I express the opinion that the time-table as set up gives adequate time for discussion of the important Amendments, and I propose, therefore, to support it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: Sufficient has been said this afternoon to bring it home to all of us that there is a great deal of uneasiness, to say the least of it, regarding the possible workings of the Government's Resolution. So far as this House is concerned those who sit on the Government benches will, in my opinion, have more to lose by the operation of the Guillotine than we who sit on these benches. The operation of the Guillotine must result in very important Clauses and very important Amendments receiving no consideration, and it will be extremely difficult for supporters of the Government to explain to their constituents why they raised no voice, why they were dumb regarding some of the revolutionary proposals in the Bill. The Bill affects from 14,000,000 to 16,000,000 of our fellow countrymen and country women and its effects will be brought into the homes of our people, in regard to which Members of Parliament, of whatever party, will be asked many questions.
Under the Resolution very little opportunity will be given to many Members who are anxious to express their opinions, to be able to express them. As a comparatively new Member I have listened to the arguments in favour of the Resolution. One argument is that you must have a time-table, and the second argument is that if you have a time-table you do away with the possibility of all-night sittings or long Sessions. If we agree that some time-table may be absolutely necessary in the interests of Government business, one is still left with the feeling that this Resolution is not the way in which the matter might be put through. We on these benches were not so much consulted by the Government on the matter; we were simply told what they are going to do. There was no real, bona-fide consultation but, rather, the Patronage Secretary made up his mind what he is going to do and tells us that we must put up with it.
If ever there was a Bill on which honest co-operation is essential it is this Bill. We are told that it is the production of a National Government, supporters of whom are men and women of varying views who come under the flag of the National Government; but I suggest that the way the Resolution has been brought forward in the bad traditions of old fashioned Toryism and shows a desire to use a big majority ruthlessly, saying to the Opposition: "This is what we are going to do. This is what you have to put up with. We are not inclined to take much notice of your views." We had a feeling the other night that we were being treated as naughty schoolchildren. This Resolution justifies the statement made by an hon. Member on this side that the Government are treating us with a suspicion of bullying so far as this Bill is concerned. I suggest that the attendance to-day is not to be taken as indicative of the interest which hon. Members feel on this question. If the scanty attendance does indicate the interest of hon. Members they will have to answer for it in their constituencies, because this is a Bill which, with its injustices, effects tremendous changes affecting unemployment insurance and the whole question of unemployment for some years to come. If there is no more interest to be taken in it than appears to-day, so much the worse for the Government.

Captain WATERHOUSE: What about your own benches?

Mr. BANFIELD: In proportion, we can give the Government benches a start, any day in the week. If the hon. and gallant Member will look at the list at the end of the Session he will see that the Opposition does its duty. Complaints are made that supporters of the Government do not do their duty. One of the reasons is that, apparently, the Government Front Bench do not desire to give their supporters an opportunity to express their own minds. Nothing is more calculated to detract from the dignity of this House when hon. Members who desire to contribute something for the good government of the country are treated simply as voting machines and not allowed to express their honest convictions. If ever there was a Bill on which a private Member ought to be allowed to express his convictions and not be bound by party, and on which
freedom should be given to him, this is the Bill.
One of the chief grievances I have against the Resolution is that it is in the main intended to stifle that expression of free opinion which ought to take place on a Bill of this kind. The method of selecting Amendments would have been best, leaving it to the Chair to conduct the Debate in Committee. If there were signs of definite obstruction the Government would then have power to bring in a Resolution of this kind. The people affected by this Bill will know that in a matter which affects their everyday life the Government brought in a Guillotine Resolution before we had started the Committee stage, and they will say that the Government did not allow an opportunity for the free expression of criticism and the moving of helpful, constructive Amendments. They will say that the Bill has been forced down the throat of the House of Commons and down the throat of the country, and Ministers will arouse against themselves a great deal of opposition. There are such changes proposed in the Bill that the more we can have the Bill explained and the more we can have the views of hon. Members the better it will be for this House, and, above all, for the people who are so directly affected. Speaking not only for myself but for millions of men and women I protest against this attempt of the Government to ram a most unpopular Bill in many of its Clauses down the throats of this House and of the country, without giving opportunity for free expression of opinion.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I do not very often address the House on any topic, but I listen to debates a good deal. It is often true that those who are lookers on see most of the game. As the result of my own experience in the House I have come to the conclusion that the lot of the back bench supporter of any Government is not an easy one. He very often desires to add not merely criticism but constructive effort in regard to what is being done by his front bench. It would be idle to pretend that it does not often happen that people who are desirous of rendering their help in matters before the House feel either that they ought not to intervene, because they may be upsetting the Government's programme, or
that their efforts are not needed in view of the statement which may come from the Government Bench but which, perhaps it may be due to some accident in the course of the Debate, does not come. From my own point of view, having watched various Guillotine Motions, I am convinced that they have one definite operation. They give Members on both sides of the House, if they choose to keep their observations within manageable limits, an opportunity of conducting what is far too little done in this House and that is conducting a real debate, real answers being given from side to side on points which have been raised and which are worthy of being raised and worthy of being answered, as distinct from a number of set speeches, which are made time after time not merely on great occasions but are creeping into our Committee discussions. One watches people coming into the House and speaking for a few minutes, delivering a speech they have prepared, and before very long they disappear.
I welcome the Guillotine Motion, because I believe that it will give some of us who do not intervene much in debate an opportunity of adding our efforts to make this Bill what it ought to be. I do not adopt the attitude that hon. Members on the back benches on this side, as has been suggested, are going to be damaged by this Resolution. I am convinced that we on this side have nothing to fear in expressing our views upon the Bill and having an opportunity under the Resolution of taking a fair share in the Debates on the Bill in Committee. As to the rest of it, most of the observations, with which I have a good deal of sympathy, would have been better directed to an attempt, or a series of attempts, to get the length of time, if it is insufficient for the stages of the Bill, increased. Nobody desires in a Measure of this complexity and importance to prevent any proper expression of criticism or point of view on a matter which has been thrashed out over and over again and affects such an immense number of our fellow citizens. But to say that if you regulate your proceedings at the start you are doing something which is wrong, that there ought to be an unregulated discussion to start with and then, when the whole time-table of the
Government is completely out of order, introduce a Guillotine Resolution, is not a procedure which is likely to redound to the credit of the House or the Government. Speaking as one who supports the Bill in its main features but who desires to criticise some of its details, and also as one who is convinced that resolutions of this kind are an inevitable necessity and may make for good, I shall support the Resolution.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: We welcome the opinion we have heard from all sides of the House on this Motion. I cannot discuss the relative merits of the Guillotine and the kangaroo, being only a new Member, but during the last Labour Government I had an opportunity in Committee upstairs of seeing how the kangaroo could be applied and I think that it is a much better instrument to use in connection with this Bill than the Guillotine. We do not question a timetable as such. If supporters of the Government were to remain quiet the time allotted might be adequate for the Opposition. There are 244 Amendments already down to the Bill and no doubt there will be more to come. I leave it to hon. Members to think how much time can be given to the consideration of these Amendments; very little indeed. With the exception of the last speaker—and even the hon. and learned Member was not whole-hearted in his support—all supporters of the Government who have spoken have opposed the Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) in an interesting speech opposed it, as did also the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis).

Captain MARGESSON: Did the hon. Member hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass).

Mr. WILLIAMS: I believe that the Patronage Secretary was away sometime and did not hear the whole of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, who made some strong statements, which he will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which he did not altogether agree with the Motion. The hon. and gallant Member made some reference to points which he brought up on the Second Reading of the Bill to which he said he got no reply and that the Debate was partially stifled. If
supporters of the Government do as they are expected to do, that is, advance some criticisms on minor or major points in the Bill, then the time-table is inadequate, and we think that some days ought to be added in order that criticism may be advanced from both sides of the House. I have been in the House sufficiently long to see how discussions lose their vitality. Under this Resolution discussion is certainly being stifled. Important points will not be adequately debated and it tends to make the House of Commons more or less a laughing stock. After Acts of Parliament have been placed on the Statute Books flaws are often found in administration which could have been avoided had more time been given to the Debate, or more interest taken in the proceedings.
We do not deny that there should be a time-table, but we press for more time to be given. This is a conflict between the Executive and Members of this House, the Executive dictatorially deciding that only so much time shall be allowed and Members of Parliament desiring more time to discuss those points which should be discussed at a substantial length. That is the conflict between the Executive and Members of the House. When seven-thirty comes the Debate will certainly fag out; and at ten-thirty, although important points which concern all Members of Parliament regardless of party or politics may be under discussion, the discussion will fade out. Moreover, the Resolution will deprive private Members of their privilege of raising Questions after eleven o'clock for the number of weeks during which this time-table will operate—

Mr. A. BEVAN: And which the Select Committee said ought to be extended.

Mr. WILLIAMS: All Members of the House should fight for private Members' privileges. The Executive are snatching away their privileges, and for weeks it will be impossible for a private Member to ventilate anything of importance in his constituency. I press upon all Members of the House to support the rights of Members in this respect and give us their company in the Division Lobby.

5.25 p.m.

Viscount CRANBORNE: It seems to me that the moral force of the speeches of Members of the Opposition is a little
weakened by the fact that in the last Parliament under a Labour Government they voted for exactly the same thing.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The Noble Lord will remember that in a Division in those days only three or four votes divided the parties. Now there is a majority of two hundred—the circumstances are different.

Viscount CRANBORNE: But the principle is exactly the same; and it is on a question of principle that the matter is being debated. If hon. Members of the Opposition are in rather a weak position on this matter there are Members on the Government side who are not in a weak position in saying how much they regret that the Resolution should have been put down by the Government. I am not in the least concerned with the fourteen days, whether it is enough or too little—I am afraid that I have not had enough practical experience to know—but I gather that the opinion is that the Government have been generous in this respect. But I am concerned with the principle. The theory always has been that in the House of Commons there should be complete freedom of speech. In practice that is not altogether possible, and it has been the practice for over fifty years to impose a closure of various descriptions on the discussions. I feel that the Closure should only be imposed when it is absolutely essential and when it is evident that there is not going to be enough time to discuss all the points in the Bill. What would be the result if this practice became usual? It would immensely increase the power of the majority as against the Opposition. What is the position of any Opposition? They cannot beat the Government in a Division, all they can do is to argue and argue until the time comes when the Government may, if they feel strongly enough about it, move the Closure. That was a practice universally accepted, but if you make it the usual practice to have a time-table and impose a Guillotine at the outset you stifle the rights of the Opposition altogether. Those who were in the last Parliament will remember the Debates on the Budget when the same procedure was adopted. I remember one particular occasion when on some important points in regard to land taxes no discussion at all was possible because the Guillotine fell, and intense resentment was felt by
Members of the Conservative party who were then in Opposition.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The reason for that was that so much time had been occupied on matters of less importance. The same thing might occur here.

Viscount CRANBORNE: That does not affect my point at all. Whether the argument is of any importance or not the fact remains that there was no time to discuss a particular matter which was of great importance to Conservative Members. They felt intensely resentful, and at the time thought that it was a bad precedent which should never be imitated by any Government. We regret that the present Government should imitate a bad precedent set by a Labour Government. And it is especially bad when followed on such a Bill as the present, because it is a subject on which people feel deeply indeed, their whole livelihood is concerned, and I feel that they should be given a chance to speak fully and freely upon it. We all recognise that the Guillotine may be necessary, and it would be necessary if hon. Members opposite were to obstruct, but at least they should be given the chance of playing the game, and if it turns out that too much time is being taken on minor matters and that there is not time enough to discuss the later Clauses of the Bill then the Opposition would have only themselves to blame; they could not blame the Government. I think that to impose the Guillotine at the outset is a real interference with the rights of Parliament, not a justifiable interference, and although I do not propose to vote against the Government I cannot support them in the Resolution.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: The Noble Lord who spoke last reminded us that in the days of the Labour Government the Guillotine was put into operation. I submit that there is a vast difference between the last Parliament and this Parliament. In 1929-1931 the Labour Government scarcely knew from one day to another whether it would have a majority in the Lobbies. In the case of the present Parliament we have an almost all-powerful Government backed by a very docile majority, and when it is said that a time-table is necessary on a highly controversial Bill of this kind I cannot agree with the statement. An hon. Member on the Government side
told us that he supported the Guillotine Motion because he believed it would give to back-bench Government supporters a chance of expressing their views. But that chance can be used from another point of view. We are limited, say, from 4 o'clock to 7.30 o'clock to the disposal of a number of Amendments and Clauses with divisions, and it is possible that if there is an Amendment on the Paper which hon. Members opposite do not wish to have discussed they can continue the Debate on prior Amendments in order to squeeze out that discussion which would take place if the time permitted. There is no doubt that the Government will give them assistance in that connection.
As I have said, the Bill is of a very controversial character. It contains Clauses which call for a good deal of discussion. Indeed there are in it proposals for which I would give the Government, if I had the power, more than 14 days, and it would not be 14 days of discussion in this House. It is a Bill of 63 Clauses. It deals with juveniles, it reverses the onus of proof, and deals with a number of highly controversial subjects. We on this side hope to bring our knowledge to bear on the Bill with a view to bettering it. Therefore we cannot assent to this Motion. I remember that we had a discussion on the Guillotine in 1923–24. What did we find then? We found that hon. Members opposite were keenest in resisting the Guillotine when they thought it was going to curtail adequate discussion. During the Labour Government of 1929–31 they always insisted that the fullest measure of time should be given to discussions. There was the example of the Coal Mines Bill. On that Bill, on Second Reading and the Committee stage, we had almost packed Houses. Hon. Members who are now opposite were pestering Ministers, charging them with this and that, and putting up all kinds of arguments as to why the Bill should not be passed. Here we have a Bill of the utmost importance and there are 244 Amendments on the Paper already. If hon. Members opposite take the opportunity during the coming Recess of consulting their constituents and explaining to bodies of unemployed men what the Bill proposes, I am sure that many of them will promise to express their point of view in this House and many of them will put additional Amendments on the Paper.
Therefore we say that we cannot assent to the Motion. We think that 14 days is totally inadequate for the Committee stage. If we cannot get time for discussion we are likely to have a number of scenes on this Bill when it is in Committee because, whether the Government believe it or not, we are hostile to certain provisions of the Bill and we shall fight them whenever we get an opportunity. This Motion treats the House with scant courtesy. It is unforgiveable, coming from a Government with such a majority. In the time of the Labour Government we never knew from day to day whether we were to be defeated, and on occasions we had to take safeguards, but in this case the Government with its huge majority has no reason for the Guillotine.

5.37 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): It may be convenient if at this stage I make a few observations on the Debate. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that he intended to oppose the Motion. We never expected him to do anything else. Every Opposition always opposes this kind of Motion, and every Government at one time or another always proposes such a Resolution. We are therefore proceeding so far in what is common form. The Opposition were bound to oppose the Motion just as we were bound to move it. One hon. Member has objected to the Motion on two perfectly familiar grounds. The first was that the Opposition objected to a Guillotine at all, and the second was that they objected to this particular Motion because they say the time allowed is inadequate. With regard to the objection to any Guillotine at all, let me remind the House that we as a Government were warned, even before the Bill was printed, that it would be opposed Clause by Clause and line by line from beginning to end. No sooner had the Bill appeared than many pages of Amendments were put on the Paper, and we have been warned that those Amendments will be followed by many more pages. So we are faced with the prospect of getting through a very long and necessarily complicated Bill with the expressed determination of those who oppose it, even before they saw it, to fight it line by line.
I have risen, however, for what I regard as an overwhelming reason. I want to get this Bill passed in order that somethink like 790,000 people will get the benefit of the ratio rule that is proposed. Until the Bill is passed that very great advantage to this large number of people cannot become operative. Then there is the second objection: Is the time that is proposed adequate? I should have thought that the time proposed in the Schedule is adequate for all real discussion of salient points. The Prime Minister reminded us that already we have had three days on the Second Reading when questions of principle were discussed. He told us that we had discussed the Financial Resolution for one whole day and part of a night or early morning. But he omitted to say that in addition to that we discussed the Financial Resolution for several hours last night. So altogether we have spent six days on the Bill before we get to the Committee stage at all. Now we are proposing 14 days for Committee and four days for Report and Third Reading. That is 24 days altogether, including last night, or something like 168 hours. I do not believe that this or any other Bill would lack adequate and proper discussion in 168 hours of Parliamentary time.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: That includes Divisions.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is true, of course. It has been said that there has been no discussion with other parties in the House as to the time-table. I am, of course, aware that discussion has taken place through the usual channels. But I admit at once that the responsibility for the time-table is the Government's responsibility. I shall not attempt to shield myself behind any arrangements that have been reached between the Opposition and the Government, for quite clearly the time-table is the Government's responsibility. It is quite true that I was consulted with regard to the drawing up of the time-table. I have had two principal points in mind in the matter. First of all I refreshed my memory as to the points to which most importance appeared to be attached by various speakers during the discussions that we have already had. The time-table, therefore, is designedly drawn in order to enable, as far as possible, time to be given for full discussion of those points.
Another thing I had in mind was this: It seemed to me that the time-table should be so drawn that after the Guillotine has fallen and we are starting a new section of the Bill, as far as possible that new section should begin with Clauses which were of obvious importance in the opinion of hon. Members. We have, therefore, designedly drawn the schedule in order to make certain as far as possible that those very important Clauses shall have full and adequate discussion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) appeared to be alarmed at the prospect that he or someone else would be compelled to fill up time if the time allowed was too much for the discussion of a particular group of Amendments under the Guillotine. I can assure him that we are under no such apprehension. Everyone who has been in the House any length of time knows that it is quite easy, if it is found acceptable to Members, to overrun the Guillotine and to go on to the next batch of Amendments. I do not want to say any more at this stage, except that I believe that the Guillotine is absolutely essential, in the interests not merely of the Bill, but in the interests of the prestige of Parliament itself. I believe also that the time we are allowing under this programme is ample to secure full consideration of this very complicated Measure.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. COVE: The statement of the Minister is highly unsatisfactory and does not justify the employment of the Guillotine by this Government. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that he has a sufficient number of Members behind him to enable him to do whatever he likes. Yet this Government, with the biggest majority, probably, that has ever been known in Parliament, is bringing in a Guillotine which will have the effect of stifling discussion and will in these circumstances lower the prestige of the House of Commons. While the Minister was speaking I looked at the time allotted to some of the Clauses of the Bill in which I am specially interested. I find that in the case of Clauses 1 and 2 the Guillotine will fall at 7.30 o'clock. On the Amendment Paper I find about half-a-dozen Amendments to each Clause. A Division occupies somewhere about
15 minutes and, thus, out of about four hours allowed to us for discussion, an hour and a-half may be taken up with Divisions. Again the Guillotine is to fall at 7.30 o'clock on Clauses 13 and 14. The number of Amendments down to each Clause is about 20, and thus the whole of the time allotted for the discussion of these Clauses would be more than taken up in marching through the Lobbies if there was a Division on each Amendment. If we work out the allocation of time in relation to the other Clauses of the Bill it is easy to see that there cannot be ample or even decently adequate discussion of its provisions.
The Minister must not forget that it is not the Government which constitutes the legislature of this country. It is the House of Commons. This Bill, we were told, was to make history. Yet a Government with a huge majority seeks on a Measure of that kind to prevent the House as a whole performing its proper function as a real legislative body. The only, effect of applying the Guillotine will be that what we cannot reasonably put forward in discussion we shall have to demonstrate about as the proceedings go on. If the Government are going to stifle discussion, the Opposition must make their opinions and feelings known in other directions. The Bill involves questions of paramount importance to the working classes. It will affect intimate details of their lives. The very livelihood of millions of people: will depend on what we pass through this House in the provisions of this Bill. Yet the Government will not give us the chance to amend it or even to discuss it properly. The Minister has treated us from the beginning as an Opposition who are out merely to obstruct. [HOST. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the meaning of the Guillotine.

Mr. A. BEVAN: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. COVE: The Minister has not given us any opportunity of showing that we are prepared to treat this Bill in a reasonable manner and to offer constructive suggestions. He says in effect: "I know that that little Opposition of 40 or 50 Members intend to keep the House sitting all night on this Bill and intend to obstruct it line by line and therefore I am going to stifle their opposition at the very beginning by applying this time-
table." I have never known a more cowardly action that that. They are a set of cowards who, with a ten-to-one majority against us, would set up a Guillotine at the very beginning of these proceedings.

Mr. A. BEVAN: But the Minister is a nice man.

Mr. COVE: Oh, yes, he is a very nice man. I have often thought that his appointment was the best ever made by the Prime Minister, because the right hon. Gentleman can do a nasty thing in the nicest manner possible. Some of us long for somebody who would do nasty things in a nasty way in that Department of State, but the present Minister is gentle and nice. Yet all the time he is doing the work of the National Government in depressing the standards of life of our people. But we are finding him out, and this Guillotine Motion is exposing him nakedly as the most urbane dictator we have ever had sitting on the Government Bench. When he introduced this Bill he mentioned the Clauses to which I have already referred dealing with children and insurance. He told us that the Bill in that respect made a big and constructive proposal; that he had been impressed by the tragedy of these young people and that he was going to do something big and good for them. Yet on this big important scheme we are to have about four hours discussion in Committee. We may not even have so much, but I am giving the Minister the benefit of supposing that we shall have the maximum.
I think the Minister ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself on this occasion. As to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, we do not expect him to be ashamed. He will stand up for anything which he proposes in this House. That is his job, but the Minister ought to take back this Motion. He ought not to force it through the House to-night. There seems to be a consensus of opinion that even with free discussion the Bill would not take up any more time than is being allotted under the time-table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why worry?"] I cannot say whether that view is correct or not, but in any case we object to the time being split up in the manner proposed. What we want is a free chance for the great constructive ability of this House to reveal itself.
I am not pleading only for the Opposition. I am pleading that a chance should be given to the great constructive minds behind the Government. Let hon. Members opposite have a chance to bring forward their proposals and suggestions.
We all know how the Guillotine Motion will have the effect of wakening into life the dumb Members behind the Government. I do not include the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in that statement. Far be it from me to suggest that the Noble Lady is dumb. But the Government have a huge volume of support behind them. Why not get rid of the Guillotine and give those Members a chance as well as the Opposition? The Government, however, are determined to force this Motion through and to steam-roll the Opposition. In the Press for the last year or two we have been told that the Labour Opposition is small and ignorant, that it is very poor, that it cannot fight, that it cannot do anything—

Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear.

Mr. COVE: Yet here is this powerful Government putting the Guillotine on an Opposition of that kind. What a miserable and cowardly Government that is afraid to allow free discussion and afraid to allow a small Opposition to bring forward their criticisms of this Bill. The Minister as I have said is the kindest of kind men. He sits there, and he smiles and smiles and smiles, and hangs his head. I am certain that he is such a reasonable man that we might be discussing under the terms of the Guillotine Motion—

Captain MARGESSON: We might be discussing the Bill in the time which the hon. Member is occupying.

Mr. COVE: Yes, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury offers us an hour or two of discussion on the Bill this evening, in return for the power to stifle discussion on it for 14 days. That is a one-sided bargain. It is a sort of blackmail. I knew the Parliamentary Secretary could do that kind of thing, but I never thought that the Minister would be capable of it. This is a cowardly and mean action on the part of the Government. It does not enhance the reputation of the House. It deprives us of the opportunity of offering criticisms and
making constructive suggestion about the most vital issue in British politics, and I shall therefore be very pleased to vote against the Motion.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: As one who has very often been accused of trying to save too much of the time of the House, I would remind the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), when he has recovered from his excitement, that there is one method by which he and his friends can gain a lot more time for discussion and that is by refraining from Divisions except on very important questions. Before I become really controversial, however, may I be allowed to join with the acting Leader of the Opposition in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to make one concession? If as is proposed the Guillotine falls at 11 o'clock each night, the effect will be that for 14 days private Members will be deprived of the time which is usually available at that hour for raising questions on the Adjournment. Would it not be possible to amend the Motion by substituting 10.30 o'clock for 11 o'clock in this respect? That was the idea of the acting Leader of the Opposition.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: If we got more days.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Member is not the deputy Leader of the Opposition yet.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the hon. Member will allow me I can explain what the attitude of the Opposition is. If they got further days they would like to change the hour to 10.30.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member to say so now, but that is not what the acting Leader of the Opposition said in his official speech. It would be a great help in these matters if the Opposition would stick to their leader on these occasions. Suppose that it is not possible to alter the hour to 10.30 in the Motion would it not be possible to arrange that on any day on which a Private Member expressed a desire to raise a question on the Adjournment the Division should be at 10.30 instead of 11 o'clock. It seems
rather rough on Private Members that for 14 days they should be deprived of the opportunity usually available to them, on the Adjournment, of raising matters of particular interest to their constituents. May I now say something about the very interesting speech which we had from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan)? I admire bits of it rather more than I generally admire his speeches, and I congratulate him on one thing. I thought until I heard his speech that I was the only person in this House who thoroughly believed that the Guillotine was never necessary. I have never yet believed that it was necessary, and I have always thought that it was very bad in the interests of the House of Commons itself. I believe there are other ways in which it might be done, and I say that if some method such as was laid down by the Committee of Procedure could be set up, whereby the parties could come together and agree upon some form of time-table for these big Bills you would be able to work things out in a very much better way.
I do not wish to cover ground already covered, but on the whole I think that directly you get a Guillotine on a Bill, you tend to kill the real interest in that Bill, and you tend to drive the discussion of it from the Floor of the House of Commons outside. Until legislation is passed, the more we can have a feeling that it should be primarily the duty of the House of Commons to discuss it, the better it will be in the ultimate interests of the House of Commons as a whole. I have always felt, when one has been in Opposition, as one has about once, and when one has heard one's own leaders making violent attacks on the Guillotine, that at any rate on those occasions my whole heart was behind them, and I congratulate them on the fact that they put up the Prime Minister to-day rather than the Leader of the Conservative party to move this Motion, because I at any rate feel that I have suffered so bitterly from these Guillotines that I have not the same feeling about him telling me what I should do this afternoon.
There was a most interesting speech earlier in the Debate from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). I do not quite know what he meant, but I thought he was giving a hint to the right hon. Member for
Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), because he said he hoped that private Members would not abuse the opportunity of the Guillotine so to take up time on unimportant Amendments that when important Amendments came the time had gone. I can assure him that that will not happen in the case of any Conservative Amendments, but I would ask him to have some little concern for the House. We shall have 28 half-days, and I hope he was not giving a hint to the right hon. Member for Darwen, because this House would be bitterly disappointed if, on each of those half-days, we did not hear one speech from that right hon. Gentleman. After all, he did the other day, on one private Members' day, entirely forget to speak, for the first time on almost any private Members' day in the present House. I can assure the House that if many of us thought the right hon. Member for Darwen was not going to be able to speak at least once on each of these two sections of time during a Parliamentary day in favour of the Government which he was returned to support, it would be a great disappointment.
Although many of us feel that you must have a vital and strong Opposition, from my own private point of view—and it is a point of view which I have heard expressed outside as well—when you have a Bill of this kind, dealing with unemployment insurance, and vitally affecting the private lives of millions of people, until you have some recognised principle of Guillotine or time-table, it would be wiser on the whole, both in the interests of the Bill and of the Government, if they did not under any circumstances put on a time-table until there was definite, actual evidence that the Opposition in this House was going to give us an all-night sitting on the Bill. It was very well said just now that nothing killed an Opposition so much as an all-night sitting, and if we had had one on this Bill, we should have been in a much stronger position on this time-table to-day. I know the Patronage Secretary disagrees with me, but I have been in this House nearly as long as most people now on the Government Front Bench, and I have always noticed that if ever you drive the discussion of a Bill outside the House of Commons, and make ill-feeling about it in the country, you do it by the bad policy of putting on a time-table before you are
actually driven to do it. Therefore, I very much regret that the Government have taken this particular line, because, whatever else you may say, once you had had opposition you could even have cut down the time-table if necessary. I think it has been a mistake in judgment to put down this Motion now, and that is my private opinion on what, after all, is a very vital question.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: It is about time some back bench supporter of the Government expressed his deep gratitude to the official Opposition for the solicitude which they have expressed for the time that may be allotted to back bench supporters of the Government. I would remind them that the time which back bench supporters of the Government will get under the Guillotine will entirely depend on the degree of loquacity indulged in by the Opposition, or even by the official Opposition, and I can promise them that we shall not waste the time of the House, but that we shall one and all try to indulge in constructive criticism.
I rose primarily to express a point of view which is fundamentally opposed to that of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). It seems to be an article of faith with him that circumlocution is identical with efficient democracy, that length of debate is identical with quality of debate. I do not hold that view at all. I had the misfortune to sit up all last Thursday night listening to the Debate on Newfoundland, and I thoroughly believe that if that Debate had been restricted within three hours, we should have had a much more efficient and a much more profitable Debate. If there is anything that kills the vitality of this House and the reputation of this House in the country, it is prolonged and repetitive Debates on one particular Bill, and if there is another thing that will kill constitutional democracy in this country, it is the shortage of Parliamentary time. But I am blessed if I can think of a single Measure that deserves more than the 23 or 24 days which this Bill will receive at the hands of this House, and if there is any Member of this House at the end of the 18 days that are to be devoted to this Bill under this Motion who wishes in his heart to go on with it after that, I should like to "meet
him, and I think his state of mind ought to be investigated.
If Parliamentary democracy is to survive in this country, it will survive because the nation as a whole believes that it conducts its business with celerity and despatch, and if the Opposition say, as they well may, that the main objection to the Guillotine is that discussion will tend to become diffused over matters of minor importance and will not be directed to matters of major importance, I retort that that entirely depends on the official Opposition. It is about time that the official Opposition, or, for that matter, the Opposition, realised that it is they who make the interest or dullness of a debate, and that it is up to them to restrain their eloquence; and then back benchers in every party will have plenty of time.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: One could not help feeling, in listening to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson), that it was very like Satan reproving sin, for, after all, the hon. Member himself is guilty of as much loquacity as that for which he gives credit, or otherwise, to some of us on this bench.

Mr. NICHOLSON: I think the hon. Member must have mistaken me for somebody else.

Mr. McENTEE: I would point out that if every one of the 615 Members of this House desired to speak on this Bill, at even the length at which he has just spoken, there would not be time in the 168 hours for them each to make one speech. After all, there are 615 Members in the House, and one can reasonably assume that every one of them will have some interest in this Bill and, at least on one of its Clauses, will desire to make some speech at some time. There are a number of Members who have been here for years and have not spoken very much, and probably in some cases have not spoken at all, but this is a Bill that affects every constituency in the country. There is not a constituency in the country where there are not a number of people who will suffer severely as a consequence of the passing of this Bill, and I should doubt very much if there is a Member in this House who has not had from his constituents representations with regard
to the Bill and how it will affect them. One would imagine that those Members would desire at some stage of the Bill to express the point of view of those constituents, but only four of them in an hour can get up, and that is counting nothing for Divisions at all. If one takes off the Divisions, it can reasonably be said that there will only be about six Members per hour in the whole of the allotted time given to the Bill.
This Bill will affect millions of people. It is being bitterly opposed in the country by millions of people, and, in addition, it has the opposition of some of the most powerful and important public bodies in the country; and I say without any hesitation that the time allotted to it is altogether insufficient. The Government know that, and I believe that it is because they know the effective criticism that can be made against the Bill that they are endeavouring to stifle that criticism and its effectiveness by introducing this Guillotine right at the beginning. I think that everybody on the Government Front Bench will admit that the Opposition right from the beginning of this Parliament have given them every reasonable facility for getting their Bills through. My own criticism of my own party and of my own party leaders—I mean the hon. Member who is unfortunately in hospital at the moment—is this. If I have any criticism of him at all, it is that he has been too lenient with the Government with regard to the facilities that he has given to them for passing through this House from time to time Bills that I personally consider ought to have received very much more strenuous opposition than they did.
As a result of the leniency that he has shown and the facilities that we have been willing to give to the Government, however, I think we have a right to expect that when something of such extreme importance as this Bill came along, they would at least show the same leniency to those of us who are bitterly opposed to it. The Government will get their time-table, although the Members who will vote for it are not in the House now and have not possibly been in the House, but they will vote for it like a docile majority without knowing anything about the arguments against it. It cannot be expected that Members, like myself and others, who represent people who are being hit very hard by this Bill, will treat
the Motion in the same docile manner. I and other Members represent people who have been living in hell as a consequence of unemployment insurance and the regulations that have been imposed by the Government for years past. They are well aware that this Bill will make their conditions infinitely worse, and I should be doing less than my duty if I did not make, on behalf of my constituents, the most bitter opposition to the imposition of a time-table which will prevent discussion on some of the most important matters connected with the Bill.

6.17 p.m.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: I support the Guillotine Motion because, as has been said by the Opposition, it relates to a most important Bill. The Opposition have already said that they will, by every means in their power, try to stop it getting through the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They have said that they will discuss it line by line and word by word. Those of us who had the pleasure of hearing them talk for 23 hours two or three nights ago, when I do not think that Members on the back benches on this side uttered a word—

Mr. BUCHANAN: If it had not been for the incapacity of one Member of the Government, the discussion would have occupied half the time. The hon. Member must not blame the Opposition, but the Dominions Secretary.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I am not placing any blame on anybody. I am stating the facts, and the facts are that we sat talking 23 hours doing business which could have been carried through in an ordinary businesslike manner in an hour. I admit that I never spent a more enjoyable all-night sitting in the House of Commons, because we had most amusing speeches, although they were speeches which were very little to the point. Having spent 23 hours here, I do not feel that I wasted my time, because I heard some very good jokes. With regard to this Motion, the Opposition have twitted us on this side with speaking so little, and they have complained that they never hear our views on the various Bills. Hon. Members who have served as supporters of a Government know that it is their duty to help the Government to get Bills through as quickly as possible, and that the less they talk the better. Under normal conditions,
therefore, we refrain from expressing views so as not to hold up a Bill. Under the Guillotine, however, the back benches on this side will get an ample opportunity and just as much opportunity of speaking as Members on the Opposition.
It is idle for any hon. Member to try to make people outside believe, that because we do not criticise as they do, we have not the same amount of interest in the Bill. We are all just as interested, and we have all to go to our constituencies and explain the Bill, as have hon. Members opposite. When hon. Members konw that the Government Back benchers are not always able to express their views because of the necessity of getting Bills through, they take a mean advantage when they go to the country and say that the National Government supporters are docile, and simply do what they are told to do. We believe that a good Bill should be got through as quickly as possible, and it can be got through better by a little talk than by a lot of talk. I believe in short speeches, but we often hear long speeches which add nothing whatever to the Debate, but which are merely made for publication in the local newspapers. Under the guillotine we shall have debate between the Back benchers on both sides, and not merely between the Front benchers on both sides. I feel sure that the Guillotine Motion is in the interests of the country and of the people for whom the Bill is designed.

6.22 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I suppose it is because it is getting so near the holidays that we are having what we might call this silly Debate. I have been in the House 15 years and seen every Government bring in the same sort of Guillotine Motion, and yet the Opposition always get up and say the same thing. I consider the Guillotine an absolute God-send to the House of Commons. I did not sit up all Thursday night. I was here until 2 o'clock, but I refuse to be what they call a Lobby follower for any Government. I like to serve the Government with my head, and not with my feet. The all-night sitting was really a shameful performance. It may have looked well in the papers, but it does not add to the dignity of the Mother of Parliaments. The Opposition against this Bill is a sham from start to finish. We know that the Labour party have asked questions about
such a Bill, and that they promised to bring in a Bill of this kind. Mr. Sidney Webb promised it. He was the foundation of the Labour party, and he made it; and he said he looked forward to the time when a Bill of this kind would come in, but, knowing the Labour party, ho despaired of it ever being brought in. We despaired of it, too. They would never have had the courage to bring in a Measure of this kind, and we rejoice that we have a National Government with the courage—and the capacity for work, too—to bring it in. To produce such a Bill requires not only work, but real thought. That is why the Labour party never brought it in.
Now the National Government have introduced the Bill, it is absurd for the Opposition to say that they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In the constituencies they cannot generate that fire and fervour against it that they can in the House of Commons. Their views in the constituencies are very half-hearted, because the people who think know that this is the Bill that they should have brought in four years ago. So I say that their opposition is a sham from start to finish, and I welcome the introduction of the Guillotine. It will give Back Bench Members plenty of time to say what they want to say. It is not really speeches that count so much in the House of Commons. The people who make the longest speeches do the less thinking, as we all know. Some of the stupidest men I have ever known could not make anything but a speech. They have never been able to make a living except out of speaking. Such men are not in the Labour party only; we have men in our party who have got where they are simply by talking and the House ought not to encourage that sort of thing. So the Guillotine is a Godsend. The opposition is a sham, and I hope that during the festive season Members of the Labour party, who are always talking about honesty in politics, will put honesty in their own hearts, and will come back to the House with the intention of really trying to make this a perfect Bill.
It is one of the biggest Measures that have been introduced during my time in Parliament. Most of us are deeply grateful to the Government for bringing in so great a social Measure. We know in our heart of hearts that the opposition
to it is a sham, and we ask hon. Members, for the sake of the country, to come back and help the Government, instead of doing themselves real harm by putting up all-night fights about nothing. I know they are amusing, and I am sorry to have missed the last all-night sitting. I have very little time to go to the "movies," and if I had known there was going to be an all-night sitting so amusing, I would have stayed up.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It would have been two nights if you had been here.

Viscountess ASTOR: I congratulate the Government on bringing in the Motion, and hope that we shall all stop talking and get on with the Bill.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: The Noble Lady evidently thinks that all speeches are of no use except those which she herself delivers. I am certain that most Members will not share that view, but will agree that many speeches are interesting and useful apart from those made by the Noble Lady. She contends that in this instance it is justifiable to bring forward this time-table. We do not think so, for an obvious reason. The Minister said he felt that a time-table was necessary for a Bill of this character, but I would remind him that the Bill is unique, and quite different from any Measure with which the House of Commons have ever had to deal. In his Second Reading speech, he himself stressed the importance of the Bill. It will deal with a certain section of the unemployed in a way in which they have never been dealt with before. There is to be set up a body over which Parliament will have very little control, and this Measure will make certain sections of the unemployed virtually social outcasts. As the Bill is unique, there ought not to be any attempt, especially in the initial stages, to stifle discussion. We do not know how many people will come within the purview of the new body. The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to give us an estimate of the number when he told us that probably, in what he called a year of stress, only 15 per cent. of the unemployed would probably have to be dealt with by the new authority. He assured us that 85 per cent. would probably be dealt with under Part I of the Bill.
Some of us are not satisfied with those figures, for they are based on assumptions which seem to us to be challengeable, and which will certainly be criticised. He said that the basis on which he made his statement was that unemployment was due to three factors—fluctuations in individual industries, the trade cycle and the decay of old industries. He has not explained the causes of unemployment, and has not explained those factors which are likely to add to the number of people who will be treated under that part of the Bill. It is an innovation and an entirely different method of treatment. To speak of fluctuations in individual industries, the trade cycle and dying industries is merely to describe what happens without explaining it. There is no explanation in an analytical description of that kind. He does not address himself to the question why individual industries fluctuate, why there is a periodical trade cycle, or why certain industries decay and create long-term unemployment. Perhaps it would be out of order to deal with the mater at any length now, but we on these benches doubt very much the accuracy of the Minister's statement that only about 15 per cent. of the unemployed are likely to come under the operations of this extra-Parliamentary body which we are setting up. With a Measure of this kind it is not right that the Government should, at the outset of the proceedings, stifle legitimate discussion and constructive criticism, and I shall have no hesitation whatever in voting against the proposed time-table.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. MCGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with the protest against the Guillotine being adopted for this Bill. Discussion in this House, even when it runs to the extent of an occasional all-night sitting, should not be treated as it has been by some hon. Members, because in these days of decaying Parliamentary institutions if there is anything that might revive in the people of this country a feeling of admiration rather than of contempt—which they have at the moment—for Parliamentary institutions, it is the knowledge that, even at the expense of inconvenience to hon. Members, an occasional all-night sitting takes place. I also object to the statement made by the
hon. Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell) that the business last Thursday and Friday would have occupied only an hour had it not been' for the endless, useless and unintelligent discussion which was carried on. No one can say that the business of taking away Parliamentary government from a Dominion ought to be done without adequate and proper discussion and an opportunity for Members on all sides of the House to ventilate their views. I am certain that, with rather more close and clear thinking, Members who believe in Parliamentary government will be rather inclined to admire than to treat in a contemptuous manner the preparedness of Members of this House to engage occasionally in discussions which may be of advantage to the institution of Parliamentary government as a whole.
Coming to the Bill, we are told that hon. Members only engage in discussions which they fell will be reported in their local Press. Anyone who looks into the speeches made from the Socialist benches will discover that sometimes they are too extreme for the Tory Press and at the same time too extreme for the Labour Press. We on this bench suffer from inadequate reporting because, in the main, our propaganda is not palatable to the Tory party and is not desired by the Labour party, who fear that we might convert their supporters to our Socialist point of view. Adequate and proper discussion of this Bill is absolutely essential in the interests of the average man and woman, who feel that this is a House for the ventilation of their feelings, their disagreements and their protests. There ought to be no closing down of discussion on this Bill, which I regard as the biggest and most fundamental Measure which Parliament has tackled for a considerable number of years. It affects the lives and well-being not only of unemployed persons but, with the means test and the "cuts," it affects whole families, both those in employment and those unemployed. The people affected, taking into account their dependants, probably number from 10,000,000 to 13,000,000, and it is wrong to say that anything which affects so large a number of our people should be forced through this House by a Government using their overwhelming power and majority to stifle adequate discussion. Therefore, I desire to asso-
ciate myself with the protest of the official Opposition.
I would also point out that many supporters of the Government who do not speak nowadays were frequent speakers when they were in opposition. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) was an endless talking-machine when the Labour party were in office, but now he comes along, with other Members, to say, "Why cannot we have these Measures hurried through this House? Why should there be this endless discussion and all-night sittings?" Within a fortnight of coming to the House I remember an endless discussion, one which never had any value at all, on the Budget. It was carried on night after night by the very people who are to-day protesting against any delay with this Bill. I am not concerned altogether about the Guillotine. I know that the Government have to regulate their business and to get their Measures through the House, but they ought to pay proper attention to the fact that this Measure is being viewed with alarm and antagonism by the unemployed, by their dependants, by the trade unions and by large sections of the shopkeeping community. The Government do not yet realise the weight of public feeling in the country against this Measure and against the way in which the unemployed are being treated.
If Members do discuss the Bill it ought not to be taken that they are desirous only of talking. Personally, I feel that I do not want to talk, because there is no chance of getting any concession from the Government in return for any plea that is made or reason advanced. The Government may say that they have offered to come to an agreement on the timetable, but they have decided on the number of days they will allot to the Measure and we are only invited to regulate the apportionment of that time within the limits of those days. Supporters of the Government very often do not desire to talk on a Measure like this because by doing so they would bring down condemnation on themselves in their constituencies. They desire to play the silent man and to give silent votes without expressing their views. The hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) shakes her head, but I am prepared to be a prophet and to say
that she will fall at the next election after backing this Measure.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I would like to suggest to the hon. Member that the people of Dundee are more intelligent.

Mr. MCGOVERN: Yes, that is a very fine phrase to use. When people do not elect us we always think they are very unintelligent, and very intelligent when they do elect us.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I did not refer to the intelligence of the electors concerning whom they would vote for, but their ability to understand the advantages of this Bill and not oppose it.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am prepared to wait and see. I am prepared to advance this offer, that I would attack Dundee as a seat and secure a thumping majority over the hon. Lady as a mandate against this Measure. If any hon. Member for a large industrial area will provide the opportunity for a by-election, I am prepared to go into his division and challenge him over this Bill, because I know the feelings of the working class against it. It must be remembered that their feelings do not develop when a Measure is introduced, but only after they begin to realise what is in it. On many occasions Measures go through this House without adequate discussion, an example being the one which took away medical rights, pensions and maternity benefits and imposed reductions of benefit. If the working class had realised at the time what was in the air they would have made that protest which they now realise they ought to have made. In the same way the Government have no right to force this Bill through and attempt to compel the Opposition to agree, or to give any semblance of agreement, to the period they are allotting for discussion.
Training camps for the unemployed are to be set up, one of the most dangerous precedents ever introduced in this country. Members ought to have every opportunity to express their views on that issue and to get the views of their constituents, because a Member has no right to put forward his own personal point of view instead of representing the views of the overwhelming mass of his constituents. There ought to be days on end for the discussion of that proposal in itself in order that we might hammer out
the question of whether it is an advantage to the country and ought to be tolerated by the people. The Government may force through their Measure, they may compel the Opposition to give way to numerical superiority, but let them remember that there are millions of human beings who are opposed to this Measure. As time goes on the Government will realise what is the overwhelming mass of opinion amongst the people, who will say: "This is a slave Measure which ought not to be tolerated by a free democracy and ought not to be allowed to go unchallenged. While I associate myself with the official Opposition in this protest, I recognise that the Government will force their will on us, and that we shall not have adequate discussion; but in the end the Government will only bring this institution into greater contempt at a time when they ought to attempt to bolster it up in the eyes of the people. Then the people will be compelled ultimately to make their mind felt, not by Parliamentary discussion, by Divisions, and by Amendments, but by a mass struggle against the ruling class.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out, "Report stage, and Third Reading."
Usually it is quite possible to estimate the time needed for the Report stage and the Third Reading of a Bill, but, when it comes to a Bill of this description, we say that it is. beyond the power of any Government or of any body of people, however wise, to estimate the time that will be necessary thoroughly to discuss the Bill in Committee. I have been surprised at the tone of the Debate in some quarters this afternoon. There was a speech from the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) who, I am sorry, is not in his place. Probably he is suffering from the effects of the all-night sitting. I recognise in his comments as to how we should conduct our Debates some of the old strident and staccato comments which I used to hear at one time, and I automatically looked down to see if my buttons were bright. Another hon. Gentleman said that the Newfoundland Bill ought to have been put through in an hour. To what is the British House of Commons coming when an hon. Member is so unmindful of the great and
glorious principles of liberty that we should take way the liberty of a whole Dominion in an hour? As far as this time-table is concerned, we believe that the Government ought to give serious consideration to the Amendment which I am moving.
One of the outstanding things about the Bill is that the more the House has understood the underlying principles of it, the more have hon. Members of all parties wanted to discuss it. I remember when the Minister of Labour moved the Second Reading in a very able explanatory speech which was probably one of the best expositions of the. underlying principles of a Bill that we have heard. The House will remember that after the speech was made, there was a general feeling that the Bill was so big that we could not grasp it. What has happened as we have gone on? I remember another speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour which for constructive thought was powerful and clear, in which he told us that not only was this. Bill going to cut through all the difficulties, but that it was actually laying down principles which would go infinitely further, when the whole logic of them was seen.
With a Bill of that description, one cannot estimate, before the Committee stage and all the necessary analysis that takes place there, what time will be needed in order to discuss the Report stage. It has been pointed out that, on some of the principles which the Bill lays down, there will be dispute as to interpretation. The right hon. Gentleman gave a certain interpretation, and, as far as I can gather, it has only been dealt with very shortly during the Debates. He gave a very different interpretation of Clause 6 from what some of us would give. I think I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Clause dealing with proof, and which lays the onus of proof upon the man. As the Debates go on, it will become apparent that that principle is so big as almost to need a full day to itself in the Committee stage, because it will be seen that it is really the restoration of the old, "Not-genuinely-seeking-work" Clause. The right hon. Gentleman will not agree with me, but my point is that the further we go in the discussion of Clauses of that description, the more apparent it be-
comes that more time for closer analysis and overhauling will he needed upon the Report stage of the Bill.
Then, and only incidentally, there are certain disciplinary and penalising Clauses which will actually in the long run reshape the Poor Law. I do not know whether the House clearly apprehends what is going to happen in that direction. The Clauses dealing with training, and particularly those under Part II, because of certain penalising effects, will indirectly affect the Poor Law as well as Unemployment Insurance.
Principle after principle is laid down in the Bill. There is the question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the members of the board being paid Out of the Consolidated Fund. Everybody knows that, although there have been three days of discussion upon the Second Reading, and almost two days upon the Money Resolution, there is a good deal to be said yet before we get clear as to what is going to be our position under Part* II of the Bill, in regard to the members of the board and the Consolidated Fund. That is not a matter which is limited to the Labour party, because Members of the Conservative party, and Members in other parts of the House, have very grave apprehensions about making such a departure from the ordinary principles of legislation in this country. Not until we overhaul the Bill in Committee can be estimate what days we shall need for the Report stage. Up to the present, our experience has been that the more the matter is discussed, the more explanation has been necessary. Whatever one might think about putting a time-table into operation, so far as the Committee stage is concerned, there is a very strong case for keeping out of this time-table both the Report stage and the Third Reading, in order that we may be able to estimate the time needed after the Committee stage.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the Amendment. I should have liked to see an extension of the time given to the Committee stage, but probably we cannot get that. When the Committee stage ends, there may be many important Amendments that have not been dealt with because of the insufficiency of time.
In going through a number of Amendments in the brief period of time that has been allotted, the natural result seems to be that the Amendments which happen to be first upon the Order Paper get so much discussion that the remaining Amendments get very inadequate discussion, and many will be passed over without any discussion at all. I think the Minister will agree that that is what generally happens under a time-table. There does not appear to be any necessity for it in this case, and we are asking that these words should be taken out. At the end of the Committee stage, if the Minister feels that a number of Amendments have not been adequately discussed, whatever the reason for that might be he ought to be able to decide in conjunction with other Members of the Government, that those Amendments are of sufficient importance to extend the time that is in the Schedule. On the other hand, if he considers that the matter has been adequately discussed, and that all Amendments of substance have been dealt with in Committee stage, and that there is no need for any extension of the time, he has always at his disposal the power of the Government, with their large majority, of moving the Closure.
Some concession ought to be made in regard to this matter, and the Minister, without injuring the Bill or the prospects of getting it, could give some hope that Clauses that may not receive adequate discussion on the Committee stage may, by an extension of time, if he considers it necessary at the end of the Committee stage, receive that consideration which he and the Committee may consider advisable. There is no necessity for the inclusion of the provision in regard to the Report stage and the Third Reading, and I ask the Minister to agree to the words being taken out.

7 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot agree that there is no need to include in the time-table any reference to the Report stage and Third Reading. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment made the point that you cannot estimate at this stage precisely how much time will be required for the Report stage, and his argument ran that in a Bill of this complexity, where the discussion will be
necessarily prolonged, you cannot decide at this moment how much is the proper time to allot to that stage. I think there is a good deal of truth in that observation. I agree that it would be impossible at this moment to say what would be a proper time for that stage. It is for that reason that the Government, through the Prime Minister, stated this afternoon that, should it turn out that an extra day would be advantageous if given to the Report stage, and subject to the necessary Government business being disposed of, such a request would be sympathetically considered if and when it was made. That should go a very long way to meet the hon. Gentleman. What we say in effect is that we agree; we cannot say definitely at this moment how many days can be advantageously allotted, but we

think the three days for the Report stage is a liberal allowance. Indeed, it is longer than the ordinary time allowed for Report stages. At any rate, we have two days in the schedule, and we are prepared sympathetically to consider a request for a further day if it should turn out during the progress of the Report stage that such a day could advantageously be devoted to it, and were necessary for the further and proper consideration of the Bill. I hope that I have shown the hon. Member reason why he should not press his Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 59.

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
 [7.2 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Craven-Ellis, William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cross, R. H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Asthury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crossley, A. C.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Atholl, Duchess of
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
James, Wing. Com. A. W. H


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dickie, John P.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Drewe, Cedric
Knox, Sir Alfred


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton


Balniel, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Duggan, Hubert John
Law, Sir Alfred


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hall, S.W.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B
Eady, George H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blindell, James
Elmley, Viscount
Levy, Thomas


Boulton, W. W.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lewis, Oswald


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Liddall, Walter S.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Boyce, H. Leslie
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Llewellin, Major John J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fraser, Captain Ian
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McCorquodale, M. S.


Buchan, John
Gibson, Charles Granville
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gillett, Sir. George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton


Burnett, John George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Butler, Richard Austen
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maitland, Adam


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Carver, Major William H.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Martin, Thomas B.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Milne, Charles


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Chapman. Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morgan, Robert H.


Christle, James Archibald
Hartland, George A.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morris-Jones, Or. J. H. (Denbigh)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nail. Sir Joseph


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, stalybridge)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cooke, Douglas
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Nunn, William


Copeland, Ida
Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Connor, 'Terence James


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Sutcliffe, Harold


Pearson, William G.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Percy, Lord Eustace
Salmon, Sir Isldore
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Petherick, M.
Salt, Edward W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thompson, Luke


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pike, Cecil F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Potter, John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Shuts, Colonel J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Radford, E. A.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Train, John


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian]
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somervell, Sir Donald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rankin, Robert
Soper, Richard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spens, William Patrick
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Remer, John R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Stevenson, James
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rickards, George William
Stones, James
Wose, Alfred R.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, Edward A.
Withers, Sir John James


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Walter James


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Summersby, Charles H.
Lord Erskine and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adams. D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenlell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Groves, Thomas E.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jenkins, Sir William
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams. David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in line 54, to leave out:
(but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules),
and to insert:
and any other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules of which notice is given by any Member and which are selected by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker.
At present, when the Guillotine falls at the appropriate time—say at 11 p.m.—there may be outstanding Amendments on both the Government and the Opposition sides. Nevertheless, the only Amendments which may be voted on after that are Government Amendments. In. other words, when the Guillotine falls at 11 p.m. the only Vote which the House is allowed to take is a Vote that the Clause
stand part or a Vote on a Government Amendment. The effect of my Amendment is a very fair one, namely, that when the Guillotine falls and the Opposition have an Amendment on the Paper of some importance to them, a Vote may be taken on that Amendment. We do not ask for a discussion, but we say that any Amendment that Mr. Speaker would have selected for discussion had the Guillotine not fallen, and which contains a principle on which, in the view of the Opposition, the House should express an opinion, the House should be allowed to take a Vote on it in the same way as on a Government Amendment. That is, I think, perfectly fair and reasonable.
I should like, if I may, to say a few words of personal explanation. Our
numbers are depleted and our Leader is in bed to-day with a cold, and a Member of the official Opposition has been kind enough to second my Amendment. I recognise the discipline which governs the official Opposition and am very grateful to them. The Government insist that, when the Guillotine falls, their Amendments shall be voted on, and surely the Opposition have a right, on any Amendment that Mr. Speaker would select, to claim that a vote should be taken. It may be said that to vote on some of these Amendments might limit discussion on other Amendments, but, once the Guillotine is carried, the Opposition will see that no frivolous votes are taken on any points which they do not think are points of principle. I can foresee a kind of case such as this: It may be that under Part I, which deals with the rates of benefit applied to all classes of unemployed persons, there will be a discussion on, say, children's allowances, which may take up a great amount of time, because many Members feel that, even before the cuts are restored, the children's allowances should be increased. Indeed, that point of view has already been expressed. A vote would then be taken on the question of children's allowances, but the Opposition might feel that there should also be an opportunity to register in this House a vote on what a woman should get as a wife, or a man as a male claimant, but the discussion on the children's allowances might prevent the taking of a vote on these other important points.
We are not claiming a privilege of any kind, but merely that, when the Opposition feel that there is a point of principle on which the House of Commons should register a vote, they should be allowed the same facilities as the Government. I think that that is fair and reasonable. As to the Guillotine Motion itself, I cannot understand the action of the Government at all. If they had not introduced a Guillotine Motion, the proceedings might have lasted a day longer or a day less, but I think that the bringing in of the Guillotine on a Measure of this kind is bad in principle and unsound. It would be out of Order to argue that question at the moment, but, if the Guillotine is carried, the Opposition should be allowed to register a vote on points of principle which they consider to be
important, just as in the case of Government Amendments.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to second the Amendment. In doing so, I shall not make any speech, firstly because I merely desire that the Mover should have those facilities which otherwise would not be available to him on account of the absence of his colleague, and, secondly, because what he has already said sufficiently covers the point.

7.20 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am sure that the whole House was moved by the touching reconciliation between the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the Labour party. I regret the absence of the Leader of one part of the Opposition, and particularly, I regret the cause of his absence, but, on the other hand, we have seen, as I say, this very moving reconciliation.
The hon. Member for Gorbals has put this quite short point with complete clearness. His Amendment would have the effect of allowing Divisions on Amendments which appear on the Paper but which are not actually under discussion when the Guillotine falls, and, as he says, the result would be that the Committee would be able to register its approval or disapproval of the proposals contained in those Amendments, although the Amendments themselves had not been discussed. The answer that I would make is quite short, but, I think, complete. In the first place, this is a completely novel procedure. I admit that that is not conclusive, but it is a fact that this procedure has not found a place in any previous proposals by any Government in introducing Resolutions of this kind. I would ask hon. Members to consider whether it would really be to the advantage of the House that it should be called upon to record its assent or dissent regarding, perhaps, whole pages of Amendments which have never been discussed, and which, therefore, cannot be considered in all their bearings. In the second place, I am not at all sure—in fact, I am more than doubtful—whether it would be a useful addition to our procedure—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I point out that there is this safeguard, that it would only apply to Amendments which Mr. Speaker would otherwise have selected? That, therefore, would cut down the
number. In any case a vote is taken on the Government Amendments, which are very often vital, without one word of discussion.

Sir H. BETTERTON: That was the next point to which I was coming, and the last with which I was proposing to deal. The hon. Member is asking that the Chairman of the Committee should be empowered to make a selection between the Amendments on the Paper. The Chairman does make a selection now, but there is this difference, that, whereas the Chairman's selection now is of Amendments which he thinks ought to be discussed, the hon. Member's Amendment suggests that the Chairman should be asked to make a selection, not of Amendments which can or would have any chance of being discussed, but of Amendments about which he thinks there ought to be a Division. That, surely, is a totally different burden to put upon the Chairman. It is not for me to express an opinion on it, except, perhaps, that I might say that it would be an almost intolerable burden. For these reasons I cannot accept this very novel proposal, which I think might have more far-reaching consequences than perhaps the hon. Member realises.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The answer of the Minister must fill the House with astonishment. He tells us that it is an imposition upon the Chairman to ask him to select Amendments which have not been discussed, and suggests that because they have not been discussed they ought not to be voted upon. But that is precisely what will happen in the case of the Government Amendments. Will the Minister tell us why the Government Amendments should be voted upon without discussion, while the Opposition Amendments should not?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member knows, the Government Amendments at this stage will not be more than drafting Amendments.

Mr. BEVAN: I remember that in the 1929-31 Parliament a very important manuscript Amendment was put in by the Government, and also an important manuscript Amendment to the manuscript Amendment was put in by the Government, and voted upon. There will be nothing to prevent the adoption
of that procedure in the course of these discussions. It is true that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) introduces a very novel element into the Guillotine, but I would ask the House to remember that the Guillotine in itself is an instrument which is infrequently used, which therefore comes under consideration only at infrequent periods, and which is in process of evolution. What we are now being asked to do is to stereotype the procedure by means of which a Member of Parliament is not only prevented from discussing a principle in the House, but is effectually disfranchised from voting upon it. That is monstrous.
It would be easy for a Member on the Government benches, knowing that we were reaching an important Amendment of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Gorbals, which Members on the Government benches might think would have a great demagogic importance outside the House, and on which they might be anxious to prevent the Opposition from recording their adherence to the principle. They might be entitled to condemn it as a vote-catching Amendment, but nevertheless it would be a legitimate expression of opinion by His Majesty's Opposition or anyone else in the House. But a supporter of the Government could keep the discussion going on some insignificant Amendment, drive us up to the Guillotine, and not only prevent such an Amendment from being discussed, but from being voted upon at all. I do not warn the Minister of Labour, because we do not know the circumstances that may arise in Committee, but I suggest to him that this Bill is regarded by Members of the House as so very important a Measure that quite possibly very difficult situations may arise in Committee, and I would suggest to him that he should be a little more conciliatory. If we can have a little conciliation in action, we do not mind a little less in attitude. The Minister's attitude is always conciliatory, but he does not seem to give us any more than any other Minister. We are beginning to disregard his attitude and to look upon his conduct, and we think that inside he is as black as the rest of them, no matter how nice he may be externally.
I would ask the Minister to permit Members of the House of Commons, whether they belong to the Opposition or
not, to record their views in the Division Lobby about (matters of principle. At present he proposes not only to guillotine us but to disfranchise us as well, and, if that is continued, there is bound to be trouble. If the Minister wants to get this Bill through the House amicably and with good temper in the time allotted to it, he had better make up his mind that he has got to give way somewhere. He is taking away from the Opposition means of Parliamentary persuasion which Oppositions have enjoyed for very many years. If we cannot persuade the House of Commons to give us concessions, we shall have to resort to some other method. I believe that, if the Whips were taken off and hon. Members were permitted to express their opinion openly, without fear of any party consequences, they would say that, if Members are not permitted to move Amendments, they should be given the right of voting upon them in order that their constituents shall know to what policy their representative adheres. The Minister ought to depart from his adamantine attitude on this most reasonable Amendment.

7.31 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I believe the hon. Member has left out of account one of the most important factors. There is such a thing as the Report stage and, if the Opposition found some Amendment which they thought of vital consequence, they could always secure not only a vote but a discussion upon it if they cleared the Order Paper on the Report stage of trivial matter so as to concentrate attention upon the particular Amendments to which they attach importance. I can understand that sentimentally there is a very great deal to be said for the argument of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but we cannot expect perfection, least of all under the Guillotine. Debate is entirely barred upon Amendments, some of which may be important, which are in the name of the Government, but you do not make that any better by voting without Debate on a number of other Amendments perhaps also dealing with vital matters, which are shut out simply according to whether the Chairman thinks they are matters of importance or not. It would make our Report stage unreal for all Amendments shut out by the Guillotine to be voted upon sub silentio.
There is one other difficulty. The House of Commons is not always divided in the disproportionate manner that the present one is divided. We shall probably at some future time have a closely divided House where a few votes one way or the other will pass or reject an Amendment. In those circumstances it would be impossible to contemplate this proposal. An Amendment might be vital to the Measure, and it would be intolerable that the Government should simply vote on a vital point in one of the principal Measures of the Session without being able to say a single word in defence of the Bill as drafted, and very likely the House might, in ignorance of what was to be said for the Bill, vote in a manner contrary to that which it would otherwise have done. Because the Government find it necessary to put a Measure through under the Guillotine, that is no reason for introducing an alteration which would make the whole procedure of Parliament impossible, and that we should have decisions taken on vital matters on which we have not heard a word of Debate, and possibly a vote adverse to the Government on a matter which has not been discussed. That is what this proposal might lead to. There is more to be said against it from a practical point of view, leaving sentiment apart, than has yet been put.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am amazed at the unreasonable attitude of the Minister. His argumant was certainly not intelligent or reasonable. The hon. Baronet suggests that it would be unfair to allow decisions to be taken in connection with Amendments which had not been properly discussed, but is that not the case in connection with Government Amendments, which are passed in the very same way? When he talked about Amendments which had not had proper discussion, I am a little doubtful about his argument, because the worst feature of this House and its decisions is that Members flock into the Lobbies who have heard nothing of the discussion. They do not ask, "What is the Amendment about?" but "Which is our Lobby?"

Sir B. PETO: I was presupposing a House narrowly divided, and I assumed that there would be some Members attending the Debate, and that, there-
fore, the Debate might have some influence.

Mr. McGOVERN: Even if there is almost a balance between the two sides, I have seen in the short time that I have been in the House that Members, though in the building, are not in the Chamber. They may be in the smoke room, or the tea room, or the chess room or at the bars. They may be anywhere, but they are not present when discussions are taking place. All that is being asked is that Divisions should be allowed on Amendments which the Chairman would have called. If you take away the right of registering our votes, it is a very short step indeed to take away the entire right of Members to vote at all on any Amendment or any Motion. Then, when we go back to our constituencies and someone says, "Did you not propose that a higher scale of relief should be given to children?" and we say, "Yes, we put it down on the Order Paper and the Chairman thought it was a proper Amendment, but we were not allowed to discuss it or to take the verdict of the House upon it," the people outside will rightly say, "What a sham and a contemptible institution to be called a democratic expression of the rights of the common people." Why should I be debarred from voting for Amendments which I consider reasonable and proper when probably a whole evening has been taken up in discussing Amendments of a minor character?
In order to satisfy the demands of democracy you ought to be able to?convince the people outside that on every Amendment there is a proper avenue of expression and a proper chance of recording your decision. Hon. Members may say we can cut down the time on other Amendments and allocate a period of time to Amendments which are considered important, but there is no guarantee that you can get agreement on those lines. The suggestion contained in that argument is that, not only must you have no adequate discussion of the Amendments that are going to be operated by the Guillotine, but you must cut down reasonable discussion on other Amendments and allow the whole of them to be operated by the Guillotine for the satisfaction of the Government. If that is how it is desired to operate, we
had (better have it that Amendments should be put on the Order Paper and accepted or rejected by order of the Chairman without discussion of any kind. The House to-day is a complete sham as far as democracy is concerned. I see no evidence of Members showing their intelligence or their thinking capacity. I am ready to believe that there are people who are prepared to see the point of view of the man or woman on the other side and prepared to be convinced if reasonable argument is applied. But, if they do not come into the House, they cannot be influenced in any way, and the term democracy is all wrong. If the Minister's argument is the best that he can put to rebut the arguments and reasons behind this Amendment, the Government are in a poor way.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. COVE: The suggestion of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is a most reasonable one, and I am very pleased to support him to-night. I should have thought that the Minister would immediately have accepted it. I cannot understand his attitude. He not only wants to stifle discussion, which he is doing by the Guillotine, but we shall be unable to discuss parts of the Bill adequately, while we shall not be able to discuss at all some of the proposals embodied in the. Bill. We shall not be able to say a single word about them, and we shall not be able to make a constructive suggestion from this side of the House, nor will hon. Members behind the Government. The Minister is not only trying to stifle discussion, but he is succeeding to avoid decisions. The House will not only not be able to discuss any proposals put forward, but we shall not be able to walk into the Lobby in order to register decisions unless they are decisions upon proposals or Amendments made by the Government. I ask the Minister why we should be compelled to walk into the Lobby in regard to Amendments proposed by the Government when he refuses us the opportunity of walking into the Lobby on proposals put forward by the Opposition. It is an absolutely unfair attitude to take. I heard an hon. Member opposite say that it is unreasonable to walk into the Lobby on any Amendments which we have not discussed, but we shall walk into the Lobby on Amendments which we have not discussed if the Government bring forward Amendments.

Sir B. PETO: I did not say so. I said that it had the disadvantage that it involved voting without discussion on certain Government Amendments. It does not make the position any better by duplicating the thing and voting on Opposition Amendments as well.

Mr. COVE: That is an amazing suggestion. The hon. Member admits that we shall be walking into the Lobby on Government Amendments without discussion. Why shall not we have the same right as an Opposition to put our proposals before the House, and, although under the Guillotine procedure we cannot discuss them, have decisions registered? I hope that the House is not merely a talking shop. The Guillotine, as far as the Government are concerned, is to make it a restricted talking shop and to refuse to allow us to take the only action we can take, that is, to walk into the Lobby. The question of registering decisions without discussion was mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. Take the end of a Parliamentary Session every year, when at 10 o'clock at night we troop into the Lobby. On such occasions hon. Members very often have a chance of making up their voting record when they have had a bad Division record for the Session. They have a chance of making it up by walking into the Lobby and voting away millions of pounds without a word of discussion. That has occurred ever since I have been here, and it will occur again. If it can be done with regard to the voting of millions of pounds, surely it is reasonable to say that we ought to have an opportunity of doing it on a Bill of this kind. Estimates come forward and the Government indulge in certain expenditure which involves a certain policy, and although we have been unable, owing to lack of Parliamentary time, to discuss the Estimates, nevertheless, the House has an opportunity of registering a decision if the Opposition wants to do so.
We register decisions on policy much more when we vote than when we talk in this House, and therefore I should have thought that the Minister would have taken up a more reasonable attitude and have accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals. He is attempting to make the Guillotine a more reasonable instrument, and to give a little more fair play to those of us who are in opposition. Is
the Minister afraid to have these decisions registered? Is he afraid that we might put down an Amendment which would increase the allowances for children? Is he afraid to allow us to vote on it? Is he afraid that the country should know exactly the attitude of the Government on these definite and concrete proposals upon which my hon. Friend wants a vote to be registered? The Minister is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said, a very sweet gentleman. He seems very pleasant. I think that the Prime Minister was pretty cute in choosing him for this nasty job.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He did not make a good choice in choosing the Dominions Secretary.

Mr. COVE: He made a mistake there, but he made no mistake in choosing the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He is the most suave Minister sitting on the Government side. We shall not be satisfied very much longer merely with a reasonable attitude. We shall want reasonable deeds from the Minister opposite. He must remember, as has been repeated over and over again—and we shall not tire of repeating it—that the Bill deals with things of vital concern to millions of working-class folk in this country. It deals with the starvation levels of our working folk, and a sweet smile will not meet that situation. The Minister must meet it by deeds and by action. If we are not given an opportunity in this House of reasonable discussion and of recording our votes and of registering in this House the policies for which we stand, I assure the Minister that there is going to be a very rough time as far as we are concerned. We claim as an Opposition an equal right with the Minister to register our votes and policy. Is it not possible for him to reconsider his attitude on this matter? What harm can it do to him? Is he afraid of it? It is a reasonable request, and I should imagine, judging from what I have noticed of hon. Members listening to the discussion, that they are very much disturbed about the attitude of the Minister. Hon. Members behind the Minister will be very glad indeed if he will concede this point.

Captain WATERHOUSE: No.

Mr. COVE: I am not going to take the Private Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister as representing the views of hon. Members opposite on a matter of this kind. I have watched the House very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that if the House had a chance of a free vote the Amendment would be carried, as it is so essentially reasonable. I am rather surprised that it should be so reasonable coming from such a quarter. I have never found my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals so reasonable and so constructive as he is in the Amendment to-night. It is a reasonable and a constructive Amendment and gives a chance to every Member to record a vote and to register for what they stand in relation to the unemployed, but they are not to be allowed to do it. The Guillotine is bad enough, in all conscience, in stifling discussion, but the Minister is now taking up the attitude, not only of stifling discussion, but absolutely of preventing Members of the House from registering their votes in the Division Lobby. I have an impression that the Government are afraid of this Measure. Never have they appeared more cowardly than in their attitude towards this Amendment. If they had a spark of courage they would accept the Amendment and allow us to register our opinions so that the country might know exactly where we stand. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting so reasonable an Amendment as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby and vote for it unless the Minister reconsiders the matter and comes to the conclusion that he ought to accept it in the interests of the House.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: We must press the Minister upon this matter. It is regrettable that the Opposition has to fight for the rights of private Members.

Mr. A. BEVAN: Where are the Liberal party?

Mr. COVE: Send for them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There can be nothing more reasonable than the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The Guillotine will fall and not only will Opposition Amendments apparenty be ruled out, but if any Members of the Government desire to move Amendments
which they feel to be essential and they have not got the Government to accept them, they will have no right, even though they may normally be supporters of the Government, to register a decision upon such Amendments in the Division Lobby. It would seem that the rights of the private Member are to go as well. I am very pleased to notice the restlessness on the part of Government supporters. They are very alert about this matter. Probably we shall see them wake up and realise their responsibilities. It is no use talking in the country about the House of Commons and the work they are doing, and how they are standing up to defend their constituents when they are prepared to let the Minister, on behalf of the executive, absolutely over-ride the House of Commons, who will really have no jurisdiction at all on these matters. The Government will come along at a certain time of the day in accordance with the time-table, and Government Amendments will be taken, but the Opposition, even if they bring forward important Amendments, will not be able to register their decisions upon them in the Division Lobby.
I should not have thought that anyone could have sat upon the Treasury Bench and have advanced a proposal of that kind in these days. I am certain that the constituents whom hon. Members are representing cannot possibly conceive what is taking place in the House of Commons. I would prefer the Chairman of Ways and Means to operate the Kangaroo and exercise his choice of Amendments in accordance with his knowledge of the procedure, but the Government are pressing the Guillotine upon us—a very much worse instrument in our estimation—and they are giving us a very limited time in which to discuss one of the most important Measures which have come before this Parliament, and, indeed, one of the most important Measures which we have had for many years. It concerns a greater number of people in the aggregate than any Measure that has been before us in the last two decades. For a Measure of this kind we are to have 14 days discussion. Already 244 Amendments to the Bill have been handed in, and many more will be forthcoming from ourselves and other hon. Members when they realise exactly what
their constituents think of the Bill. Although those Amendments may be put on the Order Paper and may be called, unless the Amendment is accepted it will be impossible for hon. Members to register their decision on it in the Division Lobby. That is a flouting of Parliamentary democracy. It is impossible for anyone to put up claims on behalf of Parliamentary democracy unless it is possible in the Division Lobby to register our views. Therefore,

I am hoping that we shall have the support of most hon. Members present, and I sincerely trust that they will influence the sheep who will come along and who, I am afraid, will walk just as they are bidden to walk in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 59.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
 [8.2 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Agnew, Lieut. Com. P. G.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Albery, Irving James
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maitland, Adam


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Martin, Thomas B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gibson, Charles Granville
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, Charles


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Morgan, Robert H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (portsm'th, C.)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bernays, Robert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Stephard


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nail, Sir Joseph


Boulton, W. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nunn, William


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Harbord, Arthur
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hartland, George A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Haslam, sir John (Bolton)
Pearson, William G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Penny, Sir George


Burghley, Lord
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Petherick, M.


Burnett, John George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peto, Geoffrey K (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pike, Cecil F.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Potter, John


Carver, Major William H.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Radford, E. A.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hurd, Sir Percy
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtamth., S.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jennings, Roland
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Christie, James Archibald
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rankin, Robert


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Conant, R. J. E.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Remer, John R.


Cooke, Douglas
Law, Sir Alfred
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Copeland, Ida
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rickards, George William


Craven-Ellis, William
Levy, Thomas
Robinson, John Roland


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lewis, Oswald
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Crossley, A. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dickie, John P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Drewe, Cedric
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Salt, Edward W.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, William
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Shute, Colonel J. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-ln-F.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Somervell, Sir Donald
Summersby, Charles H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Weymouth, Viscount


Soper, Richard
Tate, Mavis Constance
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thompson, Luke
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertl'd)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spens, William Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wise, Alfred R.


Stevenson, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Withers, Sir John James


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)



Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Briant, Frank
Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rea, Walter Russell


Buchanan, George
Hamilton, Sir R. w. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
White, Henry Graham


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. A. Bevan and Mr. McGovern.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry

8.11 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, in line 59, to leave out:
and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10.
I am moving the Amendment which stands in the name of hon. Members below the Gangway which we understand they are unable to move because they have taken part in moving and discussing other Amendments standing earlier on the Order Paper. I feel privileged to be able to get them out of the difficulty that has arisen, and I am pleased to move the Amendment. I consider that the words which they seek by their Amendment to delete are an insult to every Member of this House if they are permitted to remain in the Resolution submitted by the Minister of Labour. The Resolution is sufficiently iniquitous when it asks the great majority of the Government's supporters to take away the rights of the Opposition in regard to voting upon important Amendments which, through the action of the Guillotine, they are unable to move, but we find a still further iniquity is proposed to be perpetrated. We are asked to agree to this proposal:
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day.
That is, after we have exhausted the proceedings according to the time-table. One of the very great rights which Members of this House enjoy is the right given to them under Standing Order No. 10. Not merely is that the right of every hon. Member but it is a very powerful right given to the Opposition. Something may arise at any time, for example, in foreign affairs, brought about by weakness on the part of the Government or failure to estimate what was likely to arise abroad, which might cause considerable distraction throughout the country and the Empire, or there might be many other matters of extreme importance and urgency requiring to be brought before the House immediately, and to be discussed at once during the 18 days for which the time-table makes allowance, yet the Minister comes to the House and asks Members to waive their rights, asks the Opposition to waive its right to be
able to bring forward a Motion under Standing Order No. 10, and have it discussed in the ordinary way.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that they are not taking away any right of discussion and that all they are doing is to delay the discussion until the business set out for that particular day has been concluded. That is not sufficient for a notice of Motion on a matter of urgency. To discuss a matter of that kind after 11 o'clock instead of at 8.15, as under the Standing Order, means that the Debate loses its effect. There is no adequate Press report to make the people of the country understand what is happening. They may be aware of an extreme crisis arising and tormented by the fear that difficulties are likely to arise between this country and a foreign nation, possibly with a declaration of war, and there is no opportunity save by broadcasting to allay their fears except through a Debate in this House and a statement made by the Government. I submit that it is asking hon. Members to yield too much, to give away their privileges under Standing Order No. 10. It is quite effective to safeguard the rights of hon. Members. I will read it for the purpose of enabling new Members to understand what it really means:
No Motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of business on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday have been disposed of.
It will be seen that those are the very days upon which the Guillotine is going to operate—
and no such Motion shall be made before the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion have been entered upon, except by leave of the House, unless a Member rising in his place shall propose to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and not less than 40 Members shall thereupon rise in their places to support the Motion, or unless, if fewer than 40 Members and not less than 10 shall thereupon rise in their places the House shall, on a Division, upon question put forthwith, determine whether such Motion shall be made. If the Motion is so supported, or the House so determines that it shall be made, it shall stand over until a quarter-past eight on the same day.
The Motion as it is framed does not permit of any Debate upon a Motion which the House agrees shall be considered under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day. It means that hon. Members are not going to have the right
to discuss a matter of urgent public importance at half-past eight in the evening as under the Standing Order, but that it must be taken after we have exhausted the time-table for the allotted day, that is, after 11 o'clock at night. The Government is asking the House to agree to too much. They are trifling with the House in putting forward such a proposal, and it is a privilege on my part to move the Amendment that these words be deleted.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to thank the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) for moving this Amendment. We want to take a Division upon this point, and we appreciate the fact that he has given us a chance of so doing. I think he has been moderate in his statement. The chances are that such discussions as these will not arise until after 12 o'clock, because we may have three or four Divisions at 11 o'clock and it will be 12 o'clock before we can take such a discussion. I remember a motion of this kind being made in connection with a very serious pit disaster, when Mr. Speaker exercised his right with more care than on any other occasion that I can remember. Mr. Speaker never grants a motion for the adjournment unless it is urgent and important. On the occasion I have mentioned the motion was moved by Mr. George Warner in connection with a terrible disaster in a mining area, and Mr. Speaker granted it. If such a case occurred under this Motion we should not be able to discuss the matter until 12 o'clock at night. On that occasion it was the one thing which was uppermost in all our minds, and to ask us, as the Government do by their Motion, to delay the discussion until 12 o'clock at night is asking too much. All that our Amendment says is that if Mr. Speaker says it is a matter of urgent public importance it shall be discussed in the ordinary way under Standing Order No. 10, at 8.15 p.m. It is the Speaker and no one else who says that such a matter is urgent and important, but the Government in effect could delay discussion of it until the next day as a result of this Guillotine Motion. It means that the Government can go against the decision of Mr. Speaker and say that the matter is not urgent. In a case where such a Motion is allowed
by Mr. Speaker the time allotted to Unemployment Insurance should be given another day.
I trust that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I agree with the statement of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) that the Government have no right to complain that anyone has created difficulties for them. Even in the case of the recent all-night sitting the difficulties were made by the Government, and no one else. If those in charge of Government business had known how to handle the situation the difficulties would not have arisen. In this Amendment we are asking for only a small thing. Everything that we have asked for so far has been refused, but here we make the modest request that when Mr. Speaker allows an urgency Motion it should be taken on the same day. Under the present procedure, when the Guillotine falls at Eleven o'Clock we may have a number of Clauses and Government Amendments on which to vote, and as each Division would occupy from 10 to 15 minutes it might well be midnight before the urgent Motion is discussed. This Guillotine proposal is another attack on the Opposition's right, because nine times out of 10 the claim to move such Motions comes from Opposition Members.

8.27 p.m.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I am now in favour of the Guillotine as a principle for carrying through this House very large Measures which would not be carried through in any other circumstances without very great difficulty. That principle is accepted by all parties in the House to-day. We all know that the Guillotine has been used by every party, including the present Labour Opposition. This particular proposal to postpone till eleven o'clock any discussion under Standing Order No. 10 was, I think, included in the Guillotine Motion moved by the Labour Party for discussion of the Land Taxes in the Finance Bill. It has been. a common feature in recent Guillotine Motions. Yet I must say that I think in this particular case there is a very great deal to be said for the Amendment, and I find myself in agreement with much that has been said by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
They both showed a keen knowledge and appreciation of what would be the effect if this proposal in the Guillotine Motion is allowed to remain as it is. The right of moving the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance is one of the most important rights contained in our Standing Orders.
I have now been in this House for a considerable number of years, and I have noticed that in recent years there are far fewer Adjournment Motions than there used to be under Standing Order No. 10. I can remember that shortly after the War, when it was quite common for one of these Adjournment Motions to be moved and to be accepted by the Chair; it came on at 8.15 and was discussed. As the hon. Member for Gorbals said, such Motions are now infrequent, and I do not believe that if the Government were to give way by accepting this Amendment it would really make any practical difference. There have been no such Motions this Session. In fact I cannot remember any in this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "None in this Parliament."] That is rather extraordinary to those who can remember former Parliaments. If the Government would give way on this point the chances are that they would not be giving away any time at all, and they would preserve to this House what is a very valuable right.
Of course, I recognise that the right is preserved in this Guillotine Motion, but we all know that discussion after eleven o'clock is never a proper discussion; it is very often a farce. Members go away; they will not stay; there is no proper report in the Press. That is not a proper way to discuss an important matter like an accident in a mine or something of that sort, which might be considered to be a definite matter of urgent public importance. Another point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals was that under this Guillotine, when 11 o'clock or 11.30 comes, there are generally several Divisions on Government Amendments, and it probably would not be till midnight that discussion would come on.
I rise to say these things because I have always taken an interest in the procedure of this House, and with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was a member of the Committee on Procedure which sat in the
last Parliament, and I do feel that it falls to someone who is not of the party which moved this Amendment to put a point of view in the general interests of what I consider to be the preservation of important rights which should not be taken away lightly. In this particular case if the Amendment were conceded I do not suppose it would take away a single hour of the time at the disposal of the Government

8.35 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: I wish to add my appeal to those of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), especially in view of what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill). We on these benches have been trying to persuade the Government to accept Amendments to this time-table, but up to the present they have been adamant to all the arguments advanced by us. Notwithstanding the persuasive powers of hon. Members on this side, the Government have refused any concession whatever. I wonder whethey they will listen to one of their own supporters. Nothing that we can say can add to the significance of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim. I would only point out that we are living in very disturbed times and under conditions which may make it necessary at any moment to call the attention of the House to a matter of urgent public importance. The more we discuss this time-table, the more we discover the encroachments which it involves on the rights of private Members. Apart from the rights directly taken away by the time-table itself, it is now obvious that their rights in certain other respects will be affected. The Amendment seeks to restore one very important right which will be affected by this Motion. Externally, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is almost as amiable as the Minister. Everybody comments on the Minister's amiability, and the Parliamentary Secretary seems to possess that quality also. I hope, however, that when he replies he will show more consideration for the House than the Minister, in spite of his smiling face, has shown us. There cannot be any doubt as to the importance of the issue raised in the Amendment, and it would
be an act of grace on the part of the Government to accept it.

8.38 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I need hardly say that no one would welcome more than I being in a position to accede to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) and by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown).
I am not sure, however, whether the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) appreciates the effect of our proposal and the effect of his Amendment. In the first place, our Motion is in what may be called common form. This proposal has been inserted in all the Guillotine Motions passed during recent years. I think it was in the Guillotine Motion passed by the late Labour Government. But the effect of our Motion is not to deprive Members altogether of their rights under Standing Order No. 10. It merely postpones the exercise of that right from 7.30 o'clock to 11 o'clock or, in certain cases, possibly 12 o'clock as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) suggested. On the other hand if this Amendment were passed it would not alter the time-table. The time-table would continue to operate. The only effect of the Amendment would be that, if a Motion for the Adjournment of the House were accepted by Mr. Speaker to be debated at 7.30 o'clock, then the time allowed for the discussion of the Clauses of the Bill set down for that day would only be the time between the conclusion of the Debate on the Adjournment Motion and 11 o'clock.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know that is the effect of the Amendment as it is here, but we say that if this Amendment were accepted then the Government would take steps, where an Adjournment Motion was granted, to alter their programme accordingly. We did not wish to overload the Amendment though we saw the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. HUDSON: I am dealing with the Amendment on the Paper and I am concerned to point out what its effect would be. It would merely give the time for the discussion on the Motion for Adjournment of a matter of urgent public importance. At the same time it would cut down to vanishing point the time allotted for the discussion of whatever Clauses of
the Bill were due to be taken at that particular time and I think the final result on the consideration of the Bill would be much worse than the procedure which we suggest.

Mr. ATTLEE: But the point which we are dealing with here is not the effect on the Bill. We are dealing with the possibility of some grave crisis arising, perhaps in international affairs or some other matter of great urgency. Under the Motion as it stands you could not get a discussion on a definite matter of urgent public importance at the time when such a discussion would be necessary. You could only have such a discussion at a time when it would be, perhaps, much too late. We are looking at the matter from the point of view of this House and are not merely considering the effect on the Bill.

Mr. HUDSON: In a case of such grave emergency as the hon. Gentleman indicates, I cannot conceive that if the House determined to discuss the subject, arrangements could not be made through the usual channels for such a discussion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But the Government might not want it.

Mr. MACLEAN: But in circumstances such as the hon. Gentleman has just now suggested, would not the result be the same as he described previously? Would not the House then be taking up in such a discussion a portion of the time allotted under this Motion? By the statement which he has just made the hon. Gentleman only adds to the strength of our objection.

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid I cannot admit that. I still maintain that as far as the Bill is concerned the effect of the Amendment would be to deprive hon. Members and especially hon. Members opposite of the opportunity of having adequate discussion on, perhaps, important Clauses of the Bill. The final consideration which I would urge is this. The hon. Member for Govan quoted the terms of Standing Order No. 10 quite correctly. It states:
No motion for the adjournment of the House shall be made until all the questions asked at the commencement of business on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday have been disposed of.
He went on to say that those were the very days on which the Guillotine would
operate. The fact is that we are not going to take this Bill in Committee on every day of the week. Wednesdays, at all events until Easter, will be private Members' days, and, between the reassembly of the House and Easter, there will be a great deal of other business, so that although we intend to devote considerable time to this Bill, obviously we shall not devote every available day to it. Therefore the extent to which, in practice, the Guillotine is going to limit the opportunities of moving the Adjournment to raise a matter of urgent public importance, is very much less than the hon. Member has given the House to understand.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Gentleman realises that the essential point of moving the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 is to call attention to a matter at the earliest available opportunity. Therefore, if the matter is not raised on the particular day it is not much good saying that it can be raised on another day. It is necessary to have the discussion while the matter is hot.

Mr. HUDSON: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the theory of probabilities. It has been pointed out that no such Adjournment Motion has been accepted, so far, in the lifetime of this Parliament. The hon. Member for Govan suggested that such an occasion would probably arise on one of the days on which the Guillotine was operating. I am arguing that in all probability such an occasion would not arise on one of those particular days. I admit that there is a possibility, but the odds are all against it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Under the Guillotine you are taking more days in the week to discuss this Bill than are going to be left to the Members for Private Business or other matters, and consequently the number of probable occasions upon which a Motion could be moved arising under Standing Order 10 is greater on the days when the Bill is under the Guillotine.

Mr. HUDSON: No. because lots of days between now and Easter will also be given to other Government business besides this Bill, and on those days hon. Members can move the Adjournment, if Mr. Speaker accepts the Motion.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: Having heard the hon. Member, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason at all why the Government should not accept the Amendment. He appears to base his reply on two distinct grounds. One is that if this Amendment were accepted, it would not give time for the Unemployment Bill to be fully discussed, but the fact that another Amendment does not appear on the Paper does not prevent the Government from handing in a manuscript Amendment in order to settle the matter, so that everybody shall be satisfied. It is obvious that if a matter of urgency cropped up, there ought to be an opportunity under the Rules for it to be dealt with.
It is not a question of how often this right to move the Adjournment may be put into use; it is a question of its being the fact that it may have to be exercised at any time. The fact that it is not perhaps in frequent use does not detract from the value of the argument which says that, should the opportunity arise, the possibility of bringing forward a matter should be there. The same argument has been used by the hon. Member opposite, who asked why we were bringing forward this Amendment as the occasion might not occur. The obvious reply to that is that it may occur, and that if it does, surely an opportunity should be given for an urgent matter to be raised. I hope the Government will appreciate that it is a matter of extreme importance from the point of view of principle. You cannot leave an urgent matter until the end of the day. The fact that it does not get publicity in the Press is out of the question, but the fact that it has to be attended to immediately is of extreme importance, and the Government should not force the House to discuss it at an hour when Members are not in a position to discuss it or are not present to vote upon it.
The fact that it may not be approved of by the Government is out of the question. The Government are not aware of every urgent matter that requires attention. Private Members may sometimes know of matters of urgent importance which should be brought before the House, and their information upon them may be more intimate than that of the Government.
If the Government want to bring a matter forward, they have other opportunities of doing so, but private Members have not, and I believe that it would detract from the value of this House if this Amendment were not carried. It would be a gesture of good will on the part of the Government if they were to turn round, even at this late hour, and say that they were prepared to accept the Amendment, and thus not drive us to oppose it. We on these benches consider this to be an important matter and shall certainly support the Amendment.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I intervene in an endeavour to understand exactly where this thing leads. I am at a loss to appreciate why the Government should refuse to give way in this matter. The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government seems to be a mere facade, and there must be some other reason why the Government should adhere to the terms of the Motion. One is not convinced by the argument that because there has not been an explosion yet, it is a good time to remove the safety valve. The chance of this Standing Order being used is, as the hon. Member said, very remote, but that is one of the reasons why it is very necessary that the Government should give way in this matter. This right of Members of Parliament to raise matters of urgent public importance in this House is of very great value. The British public feel that in their Parliamentary representatives they have an outlet and a sounding board which will reflect the feelings of the country in a grave emergency or crisis, even though it be a local question, and on the mere chance that that may happen, to urge that it may delay the procedure on this Bill by a mere fraction of the total time involved and take away this private Members' right for a very long period, seems to me to be very undesirable. I can only feel that there must be some other reason which causes the hon. Gentleman to stand by his original position.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 54.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
 [8.53 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pike, Cecil F.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Potter, John


Albery, Irving James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hartland, George A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Atholl, Duchess of
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Rankin, Robert


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbart M.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanot)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Remer, John R.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rickards, George William


Bernays, Robert
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Robinson, John Roland


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ropner, Colonel L.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Blindell, James
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Boulton, W. W.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
James. Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Runge. Norah Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Jennings, Roland
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Salt, Edward W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Burghley, Lord
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Scone, Lord


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Burnett, John George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Levy, Thomas
Shuts, Colonel J. J.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Liddall, Walter S.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Soper, Richard


Christle, James Archibald
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spens, William Patrick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Cooke, Douglas
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stevenson, James


Copeland, Ida
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Craven-Ellis, William
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strauss, Edward A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crossley, A. C.
Maitland, Adam
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Summersby, Charles H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Martin, Thomas B.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Dickie, John P.
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Thompson, Luke


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Milne, Charles
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Drewe, Cedric
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Dunglass, Lord
Morgan, Robert H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Eastwood, John Francis
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff. E.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super Mare)
Morrison. William Shephard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fox, Sir Gilford
Nall, Sir Joseph
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Weymouth, Viscount


Ganzoni, Sir John
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nunn, William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gibson, Charles Granville
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Pearson, William G.
Wise, Alfred R.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Withers, Sir John James


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Petherick, M.



Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr. Womersley.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George
Daggar, George




Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Dobbie, William
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major Goronwy
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 58.

Division No. 63.]
AYES.
 [9.2 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir Gilford
McLean, Major sir Alan


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Albery, Irving James
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Maitland, Adam


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gibson, Charles Granville
Martin, Thomas B.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Atholl, Duchess of
Glossop, C. W. H.
Milne, Charles


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gluekstein, Louis Halle
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Graham, Sir F. Fergue (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morsing, Adrian C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, sir Nicholas
Morgan, Robert H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grenfell, E. C, (City of London)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bernays, Robert
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, William Shepherd


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall, Sir Joseph


Blindell, James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hanley, Dennis A.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Nunn, William


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brass, Captain Sir William
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Patrick, Colin M.


Burghley, Lord
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pearson, William G.


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Penny, Sir George


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Petherick, M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hurd, Sir Percy
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Potter, John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Radford, E. A.


Christie, James Archibald
Jennings, Roland
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, James S, C. (Stirling)


Copeland, Ida
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Law, Sir Alfred
Remer, John R.


Craven-Ellis, William
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lewis, Oswald
Rickards, George William


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Robinson, John Roland


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Dickie, John P.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Drewe, Cedric
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Salt, Edward W.


Dunglass, Lord
Lyone, Abraham Montagu
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Eastwood, John Francis
Mabane, William
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Scone, Lord


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Shute, Colonel J. J.
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Strauss, Edward A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Weymouth, Viscount


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Summersby, Charles H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Somervell, Sir Donald
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Soper, Richard
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thompson, Luke
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wise, Alfred R.


Spens, William Patrick
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Womersley, Walter James


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)



Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stevenson, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Captain Austin Hudson and Lord Erskine.


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Stones, James
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
White, Henry Graham


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wilmot, John


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

Ordered,
That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Unemployment Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) Committee Stage.

Fourteen allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill and to the proceedings on any Instructions relating thereto, and the proceedings on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column for that day.

Table.—Committee Stage.


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First day
Proceedings on Instructions and Clauses 1 and 2
7.30


Clauses 3 to 5
11.0


Second day
Clauses 6 and 7
7.30


Clauses 8 to 10
11.0


Third day
Clause 11
7.30


Clause 12
11.0

(2) Report Stage and Third Reading.

Four allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on the last of those allotted days.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After the day on which this Order is passed, any day, other than a Friday, on which the Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day, and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause which has been read a Second time, also the Question that the Clause be added to the Bill, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules), and any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded and, in the case of Government Amendments, or Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made, or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m., and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to proceedings on the Bill or under this Order, nor Motion that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause or to recommit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded oil any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, if any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS, 1931 AND 1933.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th December]:
That the Scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, for regulating the marketing of potatoes, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 4th day of December, 1933, be approved."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Question again proposed.

9.11 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The potato marketing scheme which comes on to-night after several postponements has, of course, been before the country for a long time. Notice of the submission of the scheme was published as long ago as the 28th March of this year, and a public inquiry was held. It sat in London on the 5th July and in Edinburgh on the 10th July, and concluded its sittings on the 13th July. That was not the first time that schemes to regulate the potato crop had been before the public. A scheme was brought forward as long ago as 1929 when my predecessor in this office, now the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, undertook to have a reorganisation commission if the industry desired it. That was before I joined the Ministry, and, in fact, while the then Minister for Agriculture enjoyed the privilege of collaboration with several of his colleagues who, subsequent to that declaration, though not on the grounds of that declaration, did not find it possible to continue further in his company.
Why is it that the attention of the producers has frequently turned to some method of vending the potato crop of this country on lines in some way analogous to the scheme which I now have the honour to submit to the House? It is because of the supply position. There are very few crops in respect of which the oscillation from highly remunerative levels to absolutely unremunerative levels is so striking as in the case of the potato crop.
The interesting thing about this oscillation is that it is produced by relatively small variations in the supply position. In the last 10 years, from 1923–24 to 1932–33, supplies in Great Britain have varied between 4⅓ million and 5½ million tons, and in the same period the growers' average price per ton has varied between the extremes of over £8 a ton to just over £2 a ton. In 1924–25 the price was £8 7s. a ton and in 1928–29 it was £2 6s. That is correlated with apparently very small variations in the supply position. In 1925–28, and again in 1932–33, the increase in supplies over the previous year was only about 9 per cent., yet the growers' price in the first of those periods was depressed by 48 per cent., and in the second period by 59 per cent. If one looks at the figures as a whole, one will find that in the six seasons when the supplies were about 4,750,000 tons, the growers' average prices were satisfactory, but in the four seasons in which the supplies were in excess of 5,000,000 tons, a, very narrow variation, the growers' prices were moderate or definitely bad. As to consumption. If one compares the variations in total supplies, it appears that the demand for potatoes is an inelastic one. Consumers do not absorb enormous quantities of surplus potatoes, and therefore, in a very plentiful year, the producers suffer or in some cases are even brought to ruin, while the consumers do not derive any corresponding advantage.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the figures for sup-plies which he has been given refer to home production or also to imports?

Mr. ELLIOT: I was speaking there of home production only. I do not think
that the import figures make any very great difference to the position that I am trying to lay before the House. The great variation is in home production. As to the variation in imports, when the full pail is running over, every cupful of water poured into the pail makes an additional mess on the floor; yet the real reason for the mess on the floor is the brimming character of the supply in the pail. The amount of agricultural produce which is affected by these oscillations from £8 per ton to £2 per ton is very considerable. The crop is worth £16,000,000, and it represents about a quarter of the value of all produce sold from farms. It is a very important monetary crop. For this reason producers have, as I said, repeatedly turned to seeing whether this 250,000 tons represents the full difference between a remunerative price level and financial disaster, and whether it is possible somehow to handle this relatively small surplus which is causing so great a fluctuation in the price level—the more so that it appears that the marketing of this extra quantity does not bring advantage to the consumer and yet brings ruin to the producer. That situation has produced the schemes which I have briefly mentioned to the House, and finally the Potato Marketing Scheme which I have the honour to lay before the House to-night.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I do my best, to sketch shortly, at the beginning of the Debate, the main lines of the scheme. If the Debate raises questions upon which the House would like further information, either I, by courtesy of the House, or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, will reply later on. It is clear that to attempt to deal with the whole of this scheme, and still more to deal with the objections to it which the fertile brains of many hon. Members conceive, and some of which have been submitted in written form to the House from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, I should detain the House for a very long time, and I do not think that I should. be usefully forwarding the Debate. The character of the Debates upon these schemes has been the remarkably nonparty attitude which the House has in general assumed towards them. I welcome particularly the position which both the Opposition parties have been able to
assume towards the schemes, particularly by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and others speaking for the Labour party, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and others speaking for the party below the Gangway on the Opposition side. If that non-party attitude is to be preserved, I am very desirous not to say anything to disturb it while I am discussing this scheme.
The essence of the scheme is that it provides only for surplus control. It differs thereby from many of the other marketing schemes which have been brought forward, and which handle the main bulk of the product. The Potato Board scheme deals only with the handling of the surplus and not with the handling of the crop. The Board, which is to be provisionally set up if this scheme passes the House, and is to be formed if the scheme gains a two-thirds majority when submitted to the producers of the country, does not fix prices. The Board does not handle the ordinary crop, but it determines the description of potatoes to be sold. That determination is so drawn as to allow to pass through, from the Board, almost all the potato crop. It literally does this by passing the crop through a riddle. The two methods of control suggested are that the crops should be regulated by the riddle which is by size, or by tonnage—that is to say by weight. The provisions were along lines already very largely in use by the producers themselves, who are accustomed to using the methods of the riddle. The riddle of the standard size, allowing a standard size potato to pass through, is a method of grading which is very well known among the potato growers themselves, and to all engaged in the trade.
There is another, and perhaps a more controversial item in the Scheme; that is the suggestion that, as over-production causes this great collapse in prices, there should be some method of discouraging over-production over and above the acreage which has proved sufficient for this country in many seasons in the past, and in which there has certainly not been any complaint as to scarcity. Those are the provisions as to basic acreage. The essence of basic acreage is that a certain acreage for any producer is taken. It is chosen by one of several ways, so drawn as to give the largest acreage which the
producer has been handling in certain years selected as most favourable to himself. I shall not detail those methods just now, but I think that that will be taken, by those who have studied the Scheme, as a fair description of the basic acreage.
The board may go on to say that those planting an acreage beyond that ought to pay what might be called an extra levy or an admission fee to the board, because every acreage so planted certainly heightens the prospect that the board, and the potato producers in general, will have to take care of the surplus of potatoes produced from that basic acreage. The interesting feature of all these provisions is that they are not worked out by any of the organisations or commissions of experts; they are worked out and submitted—and this is the first case in which they have been so worked out and submitted—by the producers, the practical men themselves. These proposals are not the work of theorists. Indeed, I, not being a potato-grower my self, might be pardoned for thinking on looking at them that they were extremely difficult to operate. That is so, but, if these are the schemes which commend themselves to the practical men and are sanctioned by meetings in all the chief centres of potato production in Scotland, England and Wales, there is a presumption that we in this House should examine them with an open mind and, in the first place, with a definitely favourable bias towards the proposals.
Control of the basic acreage is carried out by determining the basic acreage first and then by saying that those who go in for further production beyond that must also, if so desired, pay a further levy, or admission fee—or one of the various phrases which we may use to describe the proposal. It is, frankly, an attempt to discourage over-planting. It may be said that this is quite useless; that by the use of fertilisers or more intensive methods or in half-a-hundred ways the purpose of this scheme can be totally defeated. It is true that if the practical men themselves desire to defeat the purpose of this scheme, then the purpose of this scheme will be defeated. In that case, however, they have a much simpler course than to pass the scheme and then defeat it; their remedy is not to pass the scheme. The scheme cannot come into operation unless it is accepted by a two-
thirds majority of registered producers, in numbers and in the quantity of potatoes produced. I am not sure how many in this House would continue to sit in their places if on no occasion could they continue to represent their constituencies unless they secured a majority of two-thirds of those who voted in the constituency which they desired to represent.
The scheme lays down that there shall be co-operation with the wholesale dealers. The wholesale dealers are, of course, an essential part of the working of the Potato Scheme. The scheme would permit a panel of authorised merchants to be drawn up by the board in conjunction with the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades Associations. One of the chief conditions of authorisation may be expected to be that potato dealers should agree to assist the board in administering the regulations regarding surplus control, grading and so on. The system of regulation is an experiment, but one which is worth making, because the only alternatives are either to reject the scheme and to make no attempt to organise potato planting in this country—a method which leads to great fluctuations of prices and has made the growing of potatoes a great deal more speculative a business than the backing of horses in almost any race which the House might like to mention—or to have an out-and-out pooling scheme for a plant of £16,000,000 sterling. I certainly think that when a regulating scheme is brought forward the House should sanction its laying before the producers for the two-thirds majority without which it will be impossible for the scheme to come into effect.
A question was put to me a moment or two ago by my Noble Friend the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) as to imports. The weight of imports is relatively small; their effect is sometimes Very considerable. It is necessary to deal with imports as a complementary part of the scheme. The imports in the four months from September to December were only 12,750 tons. That is clearly trivial in comparison with the several million tons of home production. The future of the import of potatoes into this country will clearly be, like its past, of great importance to the fortunes of the potato industry. That will, of course, be
one of the things which may be controlled by an Order under the Marketing Act or—still better, as I hope—by voluntary arrangements between this country and the countries importing potatoes here. The essential point of course is, the supply position, and on that the Market Supply Committee is being asked, first of all, to give us its appreciation of the situation. It would be impossible for me to say what imports of potatoes might be reasonable, except in the near future, until I have received the appreciation of the situation which it is one of the functions of the Market Supply Committee to give to the Ministers, and the duty of the Ministers to consider when they are discussing the matter with the Board of Trade. I can, however, assure my hon. and right hon. Friends in all parts of the House of what will certainly require no assurance from me: namely, that the position of imports as a possible factor in breaking down a home marketing scheme, is not being lost sight of.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Does that apply to Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State?

Mr. ELLIOT: No; the position between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State is one which, of course, is not settled by me, but by negotiation between the two boards and between the two Governments. It has, in fact, been possible to come to a perfectly satisfactory arrangement between the two boards and between the two Governments. The quantity fixed is subject to the proviso that, if there is a shortage in Great Britain in any year, Northern Ireland shall have preferential treatment in the arrangements for making good the deficit. I am sure that we shall all agree to that as a reasonable provision.
These, I think, are the main points which I wish to bring before the House in laying the scheme before hon. Members. There have been criticisms, particularly from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I think that these criticisms can be easily dealt with if any hon. or right hon. Gentleman desires to pass them, but I shall deal only with one, which seems to have been freely felt by hon. Members throughout the House—the allegation that under this scheme the National Farmers' Union scheme, the large man will rule the roost, whereas
under the alternative proposal brought forward by Mr. Henderson, of Lawton, this would not be so. I think that that allegation is unfounded. The small producers with five acres of potatoes make up 60 per cent. of all the growers. There are only 10 per cent. with 20 acres, and very few with 70 acres or over. The House will see, therefore, that clearly, under this scheme, the smallest men can outvote all the other classes put together, which I think disposes in a single sentence of the accusation that under the present scheme the large man would rule the roost and the small man would be entirely subordinated.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Would my right hon. Friend give an indication of the extent of acreage held by this small proportion of large producers?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I could not do that without notice, but clearly it does not matter, because any additional acreage up to 20 acres would only allow of one extra vote, and any additional acreage above that would only allow of two extra votes. It is clear, therefore, that the 10 per cent. with 20 acres, even if they have two votes apiece, will be 20 per cent., as against the 60 per cent. of small men with five acres or thereabouts, so that, whatever the acreage held by the bigger men, it would be quite impossible for them to outweigh the solid 60 per cent. of email men with five acres or under, I will only say that, when it was found that the scheme could not be laid before the House last week, and was again postponed last night, the producers' organisations themselves—the people who are to be organised, the people against whom these penal provisions will be launched, the people who will have to undergo this bureaucratic method of control, to mention some of the accusations which have been brought against the scheme—were the first to telegraph and send deputations and make representations to this House urging that it should not disperse until it has passed this scheme and given them an opportunity to set their own house in order.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Is that the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have here a telegram from Huntingdonshire stating that a mass meeting had urged immediate approval; another from a mass meeting of producers
in Durham and Northumberland urging the passing of the scheme; and I have letters from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and from the National Farmers' Union of England, both, of course, supporting the scheme, which is not astonishing, since they themselves had a good deal to do with organising it, and they themselves have also held meetings all through the populous potato-growing centres at which overwhelming majorities were registered in every case in favour of the scheme. It is interesting and remarkable that a body of primary producers in this country has been found with sufficient organising ability and sufficient courage, first to prepare a scheme so extensive as this, and, secondly, to put it to the touch by first bringing it before the producers and then offering to stand up to its administration if and when the scheme is sanctioned by this House and by the producers. I think that that shows a very commendable spirit which it would ill become us in this House to neglect. The movement among the producers for self-organisation is one of the encouraging features of the present situation. I have done my utmost to give to the House a frank account, not merely of the advantages, but of the disadvantages of this scheme—not merely of its good points, but of its weak points; for it is no use for any of us to ignore the fact that any great scheme of organisation will have weak points as well as strong points. Nor is there any way of escaping that except by saying that it is impossible to do anything at all, or, as some of my hon. Friends say, that it is impossible to do anything until the whole state of the world has grown very much better. We believe that we must be up and doing, that we must strike a blow for ourselves, that we must do our utmost to ensure better conditions as well as waiting for them to come about. In virtue of that belief, and with a frank admission of the experimental nature of the scheme, I commend it with great confidence to the House this evening.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman always submits his schemes to the House in such a manner that it is very difficult to offer opposition to them, even when one feels that the scheme is a bad one and ought not to commend itself to Members of the House. This scheme is different from all the market-
ing schemes that have so far been produced. I would point out to hon. Members some very grave omissions from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. In the first place he told us, quite rightly, about the fluctuations in the price of potatoes which are brought about by a comparatively small margin over the known requirements. We all appreciate that, and any scheme calculated to produce stability of prices in all circumstances would be a very desirable proposition, always assuming, of course, that the consumer is going to be safeguarded as well as the producer. In this case, however, the right hon. Gentleman never made a single reference to the price charged by the retailer, or to safeguards for the consumer. Neither did he tell the House that the scheme differs from all other marketing schemes in one very important respect. There is already a Customs duty upon new potatoes and upon old potatoes—a Customs duty which makes imports almost impossible, unless, of course, the price paid by the consumer in this country is raised. Only then would it be possible for potatoes to be imported with any advantage to the importer, and, therefore, the fact that a Customs duty has been imposed upon potatoes calls for more vigilance in relation to this scheme than perhaps in relation to the Milk Scheme, or the Hops Scheme, or any other scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman also omitted to refer to one or two very vital points regarding retailers and consumers. One of the points to which he did not refer is fundamental in connection with this scheme. While we appreciate the need for marketing schemes and for the maximum of organisation, we are also profoundly interested in the safeguards that ought to be provided for the consumer. We are profoundly interested in the huge margin between the farm and the retailer's store. Last Saturday I had a communication from a very large grower, giving me all the figures—the price that he himself received per ton of potatoes, the cost of transport, and the price charged in the retail shops for those same potatoes; and the retail price was at least double the amount required to meet the producer's price, all transport charges, and everything else. For the simple process of handing them over the counter, the retailer took as much as the
producer of the potatoes and the railway companies and others who transported them many hundreds of miles. That side of the question is totally ignored in this scheme.
The right hon. Gentleman described it as a surplus control scheme, but that is a very inadequate description. I would invite hon. Members to examine paragraph 68. It is perfectly true to say that not only the method of control of the supplies available for consumption, but the method of ultimate control of the price, will be determined by what the right hon. Gentleman describes as surplus control. By paragraph 68,
As soon as possible after the first day of September in each year the board shall estimate the total quantity of potatoes likely to be available in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme, for sale for human consumption before the 31st day of August next following, and if in the opinion of the board that quantity is likely to be substantially in excess of the estimated total quantity of potatoes required for human consumption in Great Britain before that date, then the board may from time to time determine, in such manner as the board shall prescribe, the quantity of potatoes or any description thereof which may be sold by any registered producer.
There is a total absence of any measure of consumers' control within this Scheme, and in the absence of consumers' control the producer has full, unrestricted power to determine exactly how many potatoes shall be consumed. The right hon. Gentleman said they have no power to deal with prices wholesale or retail. That is perfectly true, but they have such control over the supplies which shall be made available that by the simple process of increasing the size of the riddle and decreasing the quantities available, the price will be determined. The board, therefore, not only have the power to determine potential output but they have power to determine what supplies shall be available for all the consumers, and in future, as never in the past, the producers are going to be able to determine how many potatoes we stall eat and the price paid for them, without any sort of joint body at all which is going to represent the consumers. The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that the merchants are to be consulted, and that under paragraph 25 even the retailers are to be consulted, and that the retailers will take care of their own business. But, after all, the Retailers' Committee is an ad-
visory committee. They can be consulted by the board when the board feels disposed to consult them, but the board will always have the last word and can either reject or accept any representations that they make. Therefore, these purely advisory committees are pretty powerless.
What we think of this scheme, as indeed of many similar schemes, is that the Consumers' Committee is wholly insufficient to meet the case. I am convinced that Members in all parts of the House are anxious to see agriculture organise itself efficiently and take for itself some part of that £300,000,000 which Lord Linlithgow's Committee talked about some 10 years since, but it ought to be a primary condition that the consumer is going to be safeguarded during the process of building up the organisation. This sort of thing is really handing over a weapon which I think is too powerful to be handed over to the producers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman at least should have seen to it that some joint body should be established which would have the last word in determining available supplies and, incidentally, the prices of potatoes. If the Consumers' Committee had been a real live one—not a committee sitting at Whitehall waiting for a complaint from a housewife in Yorkshire or Banffshire—playing some part not only in seeing that the needs of the consumers were met but that the producer and the consumer were both having a square deal, we should welcome this Order, and should be happy to see it passed. But under paragraph 69, after having determined the supplies that shall be made available, the Board have power to determine the grading of potatoes and under paragraph 70, allied with Schedule C, will have power to determine the method of selling potatoes. They can determine that no potatoes shall be sold direct to a Government Department, a local authority, a hospital or any other such institution. There is an exception but under Schedule C the exception is disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman may tell me that this exception can only be disposed of after consulting the Retailers' Committee. That is quite true, but they can reject the committee's advice or ignore their advances.
Then the board have power of almost life and death over the merchants. I shall not be suspected of being too closely
allied with the merchant but I recognise, of course, that in a scheme of this description he must play some little part. Under the terms of this Order he can almost be put out of business. That is a very tall step for the board to take. I feel that in the end, when the organisation has been made perfect, when rationalisation has run its full course, we shall be able to manage perhaps without as many merchants as we have to-day, but at the moment I am not sure that the producers ought to have the power to displace merchants without saying as much as "By your leave." The right hon. Gentleman told us about the fine representing £5 per acre, but I notice that seed potatoes are excluded from that paragraph. Will he tell us why there is no definition of seed potatoes in the scheme. Is it not possible for a large grower, who presumably is excused this £5 per acre, to negotiate a scheme and by that means endanger some of the smaller growers? I hope not, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will have something to say as to why no definition of a seed potato is embodied in the scheme.
A registered producer who is aggrieved at the allocation of acreage, or on any other score, under paragraph 89 has a right to appeal but no merchant has any right of appeal, and I should like to know why a merchant should be liable to be thrown out of business completely without any right of appeal. Under paragraph 71 the board have the power to prescribe contract terms, that is, to fix prices. This is coming back to an earlier statement when the right hon. Gentleman said that the board have no power to make prices, but they have power to determine all contracts, and it seems to me that that is the same thing. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, under paragraph 49, there will be a possibility of a profit and loss account being made available to the general public, or, if not, will a profit and loss account be made available to the Consumers' Committee? I regard the Consumers' Committee, with the very small powers which they possess, as pretty futile for their purpose, but at least under a scheme of this description, with so many possibilities, the Consumers' Committee ought to be supplied annually with a profit and loss account. I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply
why, under paragraph 12, are special members to be appointed. Has he any knowledge to impart to the House as to whether those special members are likely to be merchants? I see that they are of double value as compared with the ordinary district members of the executive. While the district member only requires 20 nominees, the special man requires 40 nominees. Why is that? Is there any special reason for it? What are these special men likely to do?
Should any tenant depart from a farm which is taken over by another farmer the amount of acreage utilised by the old tenant can be utilised by the new tenant, and should the new tenant be aggrieved at any determination there is the power of arbitration. But under the terms of the Order, as far as one can read into it, and we may be wrong, any person desiring to acquire land not hitherto used for the purpose of growing potatoes will not be permitted under this Order by any manner of means to commence growing potatoes in the future. That point does not seem to have been dwelt upon at all, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the point of view of his Department. The scheme has been in course of preparation for approximately 18 months, and I am bound to confess that from the farmers angle it is a very good scheme but from the consumers angle it is a very bad scheme. Much as I support every marketing scheme which comes to the House which gives any ray of hope, not only to the farmer, but to the agricultural labourer, I am not anxious to sacrifice the whole of the consumers merely by handing over to a comparatively small section of the community full powers to dominate the prices which the consumers must pay for everything they consume.
I know, and the right hon. Gentleman must know, that many of the large section of the working-class population are unable to buy meat and have therefore to resort to bread. You have already taxed bread in a way which falls heaviest upon the poorest section of the community. The same people who cannot buy meat and have to buy bread have to buy potatoes, and if you impose upon the consumers of potatoes, that is the poorer sections of the community, because you do not pay any attention to retail prices
but concentrate all efforts upon wholesale prices, you are neglecting the fundamental idea in the original Act of 1931. This board have the power to determine the quantity, which means prices, the grades, which again mean price, and to determine contracts which again mean price. There is no joint negotiating body, which is a fundamental grievance. The consumers are completely ignored, and we suggest that while every hon. Member ought, wherever he can, to assist agriculture to assist itself, he ought also to be extremely careful before accepting schemes such as this which hand over full power to producers to determine their own income without any sort or kind of consideration for the large number of consumers in this country. For these reasons I am afraid that, despite our support in the past, we shall have to oppose the Order.

10.0 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: It is a little difficult for anyone who is not fully conversant with the details of potato-growing and selling to criticise a plan of such complexity as this one. These schemes are presented to the House in order to ascertain whether the House likes them or not. We cannot alter them. We can either accept or reject them. Frankly, I would say at the outset that there are a good many matters in this Scheme to which the House ought to direct attention and offer very considerable criticism. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has referred to two or three of the more important of these matters, and I hope the House will forgive me if perhaps to some extent I dot his "i's" and cross his "t's," because the points to which he has called attention are those which the House should keep very clearly before them when considering the Scheme. Some comparison has been drawn between this Scheme and other schemes, and it should be borne in mind what a very large difference there is between this Scheme and, say, the Bacon Scheme. The Bacon Scheme was one of large agricultural development devoted to building up a large bacon industry in this country. This Scheme, however, is one which you may call stagnation, and is based on what is called the basic acreage of a given year, and any attempt to increase the acreage
is to be very severely penalised. This scheme is what may be called—[Interruption owing to failure of lighting.]

10.2 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I should like to move, "That candles be brought in."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I remember that when the light failed on a previous occasion the House was suspended until the light returned. I do not know whether hon. Members would prefer to continue the Debate in the present circumstances or that the sitting should be suspended for a time.

Sir S. CRIPPS: What about the Official Reporter, and what about the official record?

10.5 p.m.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I am glad that that defect has now been remedied, because this is a scheme that needs all the light that can be thrown upon it. As I was saying when the interruption occurred, there is a very considerable difference between this Scheme and the Bacon Scheme, which we recently had before the House. That Scheme was a Scheme for advance and development, whereas this Scheme is a Scheme for stabilisation and stagnation. It is fixed on basic acreage, and there are penalties placed upon people who endeavour to increase that acreage. The marketing Scheme that appeals to me is a scheme which helps people and induces them to grow more food on the old acreage, and encourages them to increase the acreage so that the people may have plenty of food, and cheap food.
In introducing the Scheme the Minister made one very interesting remark when speaking of the very great difference in price that was brought about by a comparatively small increase or decrease in the total output of a crop. He said that the consumer does not absorb a much larger quantity of potatoes in a given year. That is true, but he must not forget that the producer gets a great deal better price. To-day, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the crop being worth £16,000,000. That £16,000,000 comes out of the pockets of the consumers. It makes a very big difference whether the consumer is going to pay £20,000,000 or £10,000,000 for his potatoes. That point was stressed by the hon. Member for
Don Valley, namely, that the position of the consumer has been largely left out of this Scheme. As the Minister himself said, in introducing the Scheme, it is a producers' scheme.

Mr. ELLIOT: The Act of 1931, for which the hon. Member for Don Valley and his party were responsible, had the support of my hon, Friend and was a producers' Act. This is a Scheme under that Act.

Sir R. HAMILTON: There was a safeguard in the Act. What I was going on to say was this, that the Minister said that it is a producers' scheme, framed by what is called practical people. He laid great stress upon the statement that it was framed by people who were practically engaged in producing potatoes. He said that it was a scheme which had been produced by the potato growers and that they think that they can work it. It will be a difficult scheme to work. He admits that. A scheme of this magnitude must be difficult to work, but he said that the practical people thought that they could work it; that it might fail, but we shall have given the practical people a chance of showing that what they have evolved is a sound scheme.
I should like to make this criticism that, personally, I would far rather have seen, if it had been possible, a scheme for Scotland separate from England. This scheme covers the whole country, from the Scilly Isles to the Shetlands. It is one enormous scheme, and I cannot help thinking that, having regard to the conditions that exist in Scotland, it would have been more workable and more suitable had a scheme been evolved for Scotland, which could have been worked on parallel lines and conjointly with the scheme in England, rather than having one enormous scheme, with the areas divided up into nine districts. There is only one district for Scotland. Scotland is regarded as one single district, with one single representative.

Duchess of ATHOLL: No.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I thought I heard someone say "No."

Duchess of ATHOLL: There will be six representatives.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Yes, one district with six representatives. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly,
because many hon. Members wish to say what they think about this scheme. I would ask the House to look at the Clauses to which the hon. Member for the Don Valley referred, because they are the kernel and basis of the scheme. If anyone wishes to sell potatoes under the scheme he has either to be a registered producer or to get exemption. It is true that the scheme provides for a very large number of exemptions. The success or failure of the scheme will undoubtedly depend on how it is worked. If the scheme is worked reasonably and full attention is given to the claims of those who are entitled to get exemption, without damaging the working of the scheme, I think it will have a very much better chance of success than if it is worked on very hard and narrow lines. The powers given to the Board are very large, and if those powers are used in a harsh and autocratic manner it may lead to the complete break-up of the scheme.
The hon. Member for the Don Valley referred to the exemptions of seed potatoes from the scheme. Although I like to see plenty of exemptions under a scheme such as this, I can understand the reason why seed potatoes have been included in the exemptions, but it makes a very serious loophole, because any potatoes may be sold as seed potatoes. It is not very easy to say that certain potatoes are not seed potatoes. There is a very dangerous loophole here which will have to be very carefully watched. Then we come to the general powers of regulating marketing. The Minister pointed out that the scheme was based on basic acreage and was intended to deal with the sale of potatoes. I was not clear whether he intended to convey that the board did or did not intend to fix prices. When I read paragraph 66 I see that—
The Board may regulate sales of potatoes by any registered producer by determining from time to time the description of potatoes which may be sold, and the terms on which potatoes or any description thereof may be sold, by any producer.
I take it that "the terms" must include price. Can the board say not only how many potatoes he may sell but at what price he may sell them? I should like to have that point cleared up. Paragraph 68 is the essence of the scheme. In this provision the board has
power, absolutely, to restrict the quantity of potatoes which may be sold, and this power is given in terms which are quite impossible to misunderstand. It comes to this, that when the board considers that the number of potatoes in the country is such that prices are likely to come down they can order A, B, C or D not to sell some of the stock they have on hand in the hope that prices will go up. That is what it comes to. It means that the board in a good year of potato production can say to registered producers that they shall not have the advantage of a plentiful harvest and sell their crop, but that they must leave a large amount of it unsold, or give it to the pigs, or destroy it; it must not be sold to the people. Paragraph 70 gives importance to the position of the potato salesmen. It says:
Subject as herein provided, the Board may from time to time determine the persons to or through the agency of whom potatoes or any description thereof may be 6old by any registered producer.
Is that going to create a monopoly for a certain favoured body of salesmen? I can see the possibility of certain favoured dealers being put into such a position that they will practically be in the same position as the owner of a seat on the Stock Exchange in New York, and I cannot see any reason why power should be given to the board to favour certain individuals and give them a monopoly in dealing with potatoes. In a later part of the paragraph we come to certain exemptions, and the first is that the sale of potatoes in lots or parcels of 112 lbs. or less is a separate sale and free from the provisions of the paragraph. That is a very small amount. An order for a country house for two cwt. of potatoes a month is not a large order, but it would be beyond the limits mentioned in this paragraph, and then the exemption on sales to Government institutions, to asylums, and hospitals might be interfered with by an application to the board by 20 registered producers or a representative of potato merchants. Why should a representative of the potato merchants have the right to go to the board and make representations, by which the board may put an end to the exemptions on selling direct to hospitals, hotels, asylums and such like places? I cannot understand the object of such a provision.
When we come to the penalties we find that they are very severe. They are not
penalties which are imposed for offences tried in any court, but penalties imposed by this autocratic and all-powerful board. The penalties provided are, at any rate as to producers, these:
If any registered producer sells potatoes, other than potatoes sales of which are exempted from the provisions of this part of this scheme, in contravention of any determination of the board under this scheme, the board shall by resolution, impose upon and shall recover from him such monetary penalty not exceeding £100 or a sum representing £5 per acre of his potato acreage, whichever is greater, as they think just.
So that if a man has 30 acres of potatoes and contravenes some order of the Board, he shall be punished with a fine of £150. It is true that an appeal is provided for, but again it is not an appeal to a court of law, but an appeal to arbitration arranged by the board.
Those are the points to which I wish particularly to call attention. I think I have shown, in supporting what was said by the hon. Member for Don Valley, that this board has been set up with extraordinarily autocratic powers over the registered producers, with powers not to increase production but powers to stabilise production on the basic year to be chosen; with powers to inflict very great penalties for any contravention of their orders. Also the scheme does not provide for any sufficient and proper protection of the consumer. In these circumstances I think that these criticisms are of such a serious nature that it is very difficult for me to vote in favour of the scheme.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member says that the board has been set up. There he is labouring under a complete misunderstanding. The board is not set up and cannot be set up unless two-thirds of the very people of whom he has spoken desire it.

Sip R. HAMILTON: I was, of course, arguing on the assumption that it was set up. I was taking it that the vote would go through. The majority of the registered producers have to vote for the board, of course. As the Minister has raised that point I would ask him particularly how that poll is to be carried out. Is it to be carried out by the producers who are on the register at the time when the scheme comes into force? Will it be a vote by the whole of the
registered producers of the country or only a limited number who happen to be on the register at that date? That is a point on which we might have a little further information.

10.23 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I would like to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that I entirely agree with the policy of having a scheme to avoid, if possible, the disastrous fluctuations in price from which farmers have suffered in recent years. But I hope he will forgive me if I make a few comments and express some anxiety as to certain points in the scheme. First of all let me say that although imports have not been very heavy recently I am sure he will admit that in former times imports have played a very large part in reducing prices. With imports it is not merely a question of quantity, but a question of the price at which those imports come into the country. That leads to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman should keep a very careful eye on our imports. My right hon. Friend says we must regard with respect a scheme put forward by all the producers in an industry. He will forgive me, if I say that I do not feel sure that the scheme has received such general consideration from the producers in various parts of the country as he seems to think. Only last Friday I addressed two meetings in my constituency, meetings which consisted mainly of producers, and I could not find that any farmer there had seen the scheme. I think that is an area in which there is no branch of the Farmers' Union but there is a branch of another organisation. At least there is another agricultural organisation in the area in which one of those meetings was held. Did the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary ask the representatives of the Scottish Farmers' Union, whom they met in regard to the scheme, whether the scheme was laid before the branches of the Union and before other agricultural organisations? The Under-Secretary knows that there are other organisations up and down Scotland which are not branches of the Farmers' Union.
Coming to the scheme itself, it is quite impossible for me to speak as to the likelihood of the efficiency of its various parts. It is my duty, however, to say
that one whose advice I value in this matter, has spoken to me with anxiety of the omission of seed potatoes from the scheme. The same expert has also spoken with anxiety of the omission of Northern Ireland from the scheme. Is there any means by which we can avoid excessive imports from Northern Ireland due to the fact that that part of the United Kingdom is omitted? I am glad to know that there is not a great number of large producers of potatoes in the country because it seems to me that large producers have the chance of a much larger say, individually, in the working of the scheme than the small producers. In paragraph 58 which deals with this, I can find no limit to the standard number of votes allowed which, as my right hon. Friend knows, increases by one for every 50 acres or every part of 50 acres cultivated above the original twenty. As to the power of the board to prescribe the persons to whom potatoes may be sold, I am afraid that the fears voiced by the previous speaker are also in my mind.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the scheme as enabling the board to handle only surplus potatoes. I do not find that paragraph 70 (1) is limited to surplus potatoes. It seems to give the board power to prescribe the persons to whom any quantity of potatoes may be sold. That seems a very large power. It means that the scheme is more elaborate and far-reaching than the reference to the board handling only surplus potatoes would lead one to suppose. It is possible however that direct sales, if they are allowed, may mitigate to some extent what seem to be the rather autocratic powers that it is proposed to put in the hands of the board. Then I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will tell us whether paragraph 70 (3, a) would allow the sale of potatoes week by week by the same producer to the same consumer, because it has been said to me that they might be considered as parts of the same transaction, and in that case they would not fall within the exemption allowed there.
Now I come to the question of the power given to the board to abolish the right of sale either to Government Departments, local authorities, institutions, or retailers, given originally in the scheme under paragraph 70 (3), sub-
paragraph 3 (e) and (f). If hon. Members will look at Schedule C, they will see that that Schedule requires the board, if satisfied that persons representative of potato merchants desire prohibition of these particular kinds of direct sale, forthwith to consider the question, and if, after careful survey, they consider that there should be prohibition of these direct sales, they are empowered to issue an order for provisional prohibition within a certain area. The wording of the Schedule seems to imply that that provisional prohibition will become absolute within a period of not less than one month from the date of publication of the provisional provision, unless within 14 days not less than 5 per cent. of the producers in the area, cultivating not less than 5 per cent. of the acreage, ask for a poll to say that the decree shall not become absolute.
I cannot help wondering whether that provision of a poll having to be taken within 14 days by so large a proportion of the producers may not prove very difficult to bring into operation. We have to remember how isolated farmers are and how difficult it is to organise any poll or requisition among a lot of isolated individuals. There may be no organisation with the means of circularising a large number of farmers. Supposing a provisional prohibition has been made to cover the whole of Scotland, there is the difficulty of getting into touch with some thousands of producers within a fortnight of the day on which the order is made. One might have to communicate with several thousands in order to get the necessary number of producers, and one would have to be sure that their acreage was sufficient. I cannot help fearing that there might be a possibility of a decision being reached which would make absolute a prohibition of direct sale, with considerable detriment possibly to a good many individuals. It may be said that amendment may be made in the scheme, but the board has to be convinced of the necessity for amendment, and must apply to the Minister to make it, and the board may apparently not apply to the Minister unless 1,000 producers, cultivating not less than 20,000 acres, desire the request to be made. There again, it seems to me that that might take a good deal of organising and need much time and expense, and apparently no amend-
merits, however trivial, can be made in the scheme without this procedure.
I notice that the English branches of the Farmers' Union may nominate candidates as district representatives of the board, but that liberty is not given to branches of the Scottish Farmers' Union. I suppose the reason is that the whole of Scotland is one district, but because I fee] it is so important that the farmers in all parts of the country should take a keen interest in the working of this scheme, I wish the farmers in Scotland were to have the liberty to make nominations which is granted to the farmers of England and Wales. However, I do not wish to record a vote against this scheme, for I feel that it is most necessary that a scheme should be in operation as soon as is reasonably possible, and I hope that all farmers will lose no time in becoming registered. I hope, too, that they will consider the scheme very carefully and that, if it is brought into operation, the farmers up and down the country will take a keen and practical interest in its working in order that their interests may be efficiently protected, so that the scheme will not fall into the hands of a few men with a larger output who might possibly influence its operation in a manner not altogether in the interests of the smaller men.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: The Noble Lady closed her speech by expressing a hope that this scheme will not be allowed to develop to the advantage of the large producers, and I wish briefly at this late hour to make an observation also with regard to the small producer and the small lorry salesmen, who, if I read the scheme 'aright, run the risk of suffering very severely by certain of its provisions. The Minister, in introducing the scheme, referred to the fact that 60 per cent. of potatoes grown in this country was produced by growers of less than five acres. In so far as the small man is considered in his capacity as a producer, I think that his interests are fairly safeguarded by the scheme, but I have also in my constituency—and there are in many other parts of the country—a considerable number of people who, as lorry salesmen growing a small quantity of potatoes on their holdings, take their potatoes and those of their neighbours and get an honourable living by selling
them to certain wholesalers in the great towns. Many of these lorry salesmen—or authorised merchants as they would be if they were authorised under the scheme—have expressed to me their great concern as to the effect of this scheme on their livelihood. I hope that the Minister in his reply will make one observation which will set 'at rest some of the doubts which assail the minds of these people. In the original scheme as prepared by the National Farmers' Union there was an attempt in Schedule C to define an authorised merchant, and I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to that definition. It reads:
That every merchant applying for authorisation must satisfy the board that he is a bona-fide potato merchant suitably equipped and that his trade has during the three years immediately preceding his application averaged 250 tons. That is to say, he has purchased for re-sale, or dealt mother than by retail during the same-period, an average of not less than 250 tons of potatoes grown in Great Britain.
I would like some statement from the Minister as to the application of that definition in the scheme before us. There are a considerable number of people, it would not be an over-estimate to say' there are some hundred of people, for whose political representation I am personally responsible who, I believe, will suffer under this definition. They grow potatoes, but they do not come within the definition of authorised merchant if that definition demands that they should deal in 250 tons a year.
We recognise that in any marketing scheme some people must fall by the way. No one would suggest that a marketing scheme could be produced which would fairly represent the wishes of every branch of agricultural endeavour, but it would be a tragic thing if a whole class of people were deprived of their livelihood when many of them are ex-service men, hard working and thrifty who have invested their capital in a lorry and, living in a village where they grow potatoes, have earned an honest livelihood up to the present time. At some of the National Farmers' Union meetings they have been referred to as parasites, and it is certainly true that in some areas a lorry owner will sweep upon a village far removed from his own immediate neighbourhood, buy up the produce and undercut the other producers, in that way spoiling the market. I have no concern for
such parasites, but I have a very great concern for a large number of people whom I know personally and whose business practices are beyond any serious question. Under this scheme they will lose their livelihood, unless we can get an assurance that the figure of 250 tons a year will be very considerably reduced.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): With regard to the lorry salesmen, the hon. Member spoke about their selling to the wholesalers. I think he meant retailers.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Yes, I must apologise. That was a slip.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. H. STEWART: I feel sure that all (hon. Members will agree with my hon. Friend in his endeavour to support the case of ex-service men. Whether they be engaged in dealing with potatoes or in the herring trade or in any other occupation, they deserve the full sympathy and assistance of this House. Like all hon. Members who have spoken, I am very much in favour of some potato-marketing scheme. The case which the Minister made out at the beginning seems to me unanswerable. This uncontrolled inflation and deflation, the rise and fall in the price rate, must be tackled if there is to be any measure of prosperity in the potato industry; and I do not share the fears of some of my hon. Friends regarding any measure of control. The trouble with potatoes, as with many other commodities, is the lack of control, and until producers take a grip of production and the selling of their potatoes there can be no prosperity for them or stability for the consumers. Therefore, I am not afraid of control, but I am sympathetic towards the hon. Member on the Labour benches who expressed a desire to see the Consumers' Committee strengthened, and, if that were possible, it would be a good thing.
The Bill has its good points. Where it attempts to improve grading and the system of advertising, selling and packing it is good, and so far as it aims at improving and extending research it is admirable, and in this respect must have the support of all sides of the House. I was glad to find myself so much in agreement with the Noble Lady the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl). I had the privilege of being a con-
stitutent of hers for some years, and very seldom in that period did I agree with her, and therefore it is all the more pleasant to find myself in my present position to-night. I feel with the Noble Lady that in this scheme there are many points upon which some of us who want a scheme find ourselves in difficulties. I agree entirely with the Noble Lady when she doubts the authorship of the scheme. The Minister claims that the scheme—on my reading of his Memorandum—was endorsed by the National Farmers' Unions of the two countries and that it had been
considered by county branches of the National Farmers' Union for every county where the production of potatoes is of any consequence and the submission of the scheme was authorised by all branches in the chief potato areas.
Apparently in Perthshire, and certainly in Fife, that did not happen. In Fife-shire there is only a local branch of the National Farmers' Union in one corner of the county, and it represents only that corner. For the great remaining part of the county there is no representation, and therefore no consideration was given to the scheme by properly accredited representatives of the farmers. There was a meeting called at Cupar one day, without any adequate notice. A resolution was spoken to by some of the founders of this scheme, but I doubt if there were two farmers in the whole of the audience who understood the scheme. The resolution was moved, and because nobody could criticise any more than they could support, it was passed. One of the leading farmers in Fifeshire arrived at the meeting entirely unexpectedly—he had no idea that it was coming off. He was invited to come in and support the resolution. He refused. He told me that he did not meet a single farmer who had the least idea what the scheme was. I doubt very much if the scheme deserves the support which the Minister claims for it that it represents the opinion of farmers.

Mr. ELLIOT: I only indicated that the scheme had been submitted by the representatives of the farmers and not that it was the verdict of the farmers themselves on the whole. I only intended to say that it had been submitted by persons representative of farmers, and really the campaign that has taken place is as nothing compared with the campaign
which will have to be undertaken by the producers who agree with the scheme if they are to obtain the two-thirds majority to make it possible for the scheme to come into operation.

Mr. STEWART: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. But he produced certain telegrams which he had received from certain mass meetings of farmers. If those mass meetings were anything like the mass meetings of Scottish farmers about which I have information, they represent a feeling created not by approval, but because the farmers imagine themselves at the point of the pistol. These men are agreeing to the scheme because they are afraid that if they do not agree, any measures which the right hon. Gentleman might take to safeguard them from foreign imports will not be brought forward. That is the real reason why farmers at this moment are supporting the scheme—not that they like it, but that they do not understand it, and are afraid to reject it.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but, while he has the right to speak as to the farmers in Fifeshire, or in Scotland, I am sure that there are representatives of areas in England who would sternly deny that he can speak in regard to mass meetings, say in Huntingdonshire or Lincolnshire, and I am not prepared to draw any deductions from his reply.

Mr. STEWART: I did not presume to speak for the farmers of Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire. I only suggested that if the mass meetings which were referred to there were anything like the mass meetings which I know about they do not represent such a strength of opinion as the Minister imagines. I want to make this first suggestion to the Minister and to the farmers—and in this connection I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), who has recently had the unique distinction of hiding his light under his beard in the House of Commons. The case made by my hon. Friend is that Scotland should have its own scheme. There is a very good reason for that. Scotland has always had its own administration, its own Departments of Health and Agriculture, and its own Milk Board. Why can it not have its own Potato Scheme?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: If my hon. Friend will excuse me, would he agree to keep to his own markets?

Mr. STEWART: The Milk Scheme, which was designed for precisely the same purpose, has provided a special department for Scotland, and, if it is right for milk, why is it not right for potatoes? It may be that the Scottish producers of potatoes would be unanimously against the scheme, yet because eight sections of English producers voted for it, their whole opinion would go for nothing.

Mr. ELLIOT: If the Scottish producers wish, a scheme can be put up to the Scottish producers. There is not a Scottish scheme, because no Scottish scheme was brought forward. In the case of milk a Scottish scheme was brought forward, and there is a Scottish scheme. Here, no Scottish marketing scheme was put up, and only in the last two or three weeks has there been any suggestion of a Scottish scheme.

Mr. STEWART: I do not wish to misstate the case, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to believe that. The Scottish representatives, as he knows, were invited to work in with and cooperate with the English representatives in forming a joint scheme, and, having formed a scheme, I offer the suggestion that it would be ultimately to the advantage of both Scottish and English potato-growers if the scheme when formed were framed to allow a branch department dealing with Scotland. The Government have given Scotland a special Scottish Advisory Committee in this scheme; they have given Scotland an office in this scheme; and it would not be difficult to give it the management of its own scheme.
I pass from that. The Minister, I noticed, had considerable doubts about the actual working of the scheme. He said "I do not say that acreage control will work": he said "It will be extremely difficult to operate." He said "By a hundred ways the objects of the scheme can be defeated." "But," he said, "-because the industry has brought it forward, we should pass it; because the alternative is chaos or a pool, we should pass it; because otherwise there could be no proper justification for control of imports, we should pass it." I realise that there is no alternative before this House but to pass the scheme, but, in passing it, I believe it to be our duty
to look at the scheme from a broader or a higher standpoint, from that of the farmers themselves. It is our duty to the House of Commons to suggest weaknesses that may occur to us, and it is in this entirely helpful spirit that I am making this contribution to the Debate.
As to the method of the scheme, the Minister said in an answer to a question that it is a riddle and acreage scheme. There is to be a riddle; it is to work for 11 months in the year and during the month of August it is to have a rest. In that time, apparently, "smalls" may disport themselves on the market with grouse and other sporting animals. This riddle scheme, it seems to me, will be quite unworkable. I do not know how you are going to enforce the riddle method unless you have some kind of policeman attending the farm in the course of riddling, as he does now in the course of sheep-dipping. Unless you are going to have a kind of riddle policeman working about the country, I do not see how the scheme can be worked at all. We read of men in Ireland being smashed over the head with police batons. Is the new terror to be being smashed over the head with a police riddle And it is an unfair method. On some qualities of land, and particularly on some small-holdings that I know of in my part of the country, the size of the potatoes produced is small, while in other parts of the country, like Lincolnshire, the average size is greater. Those parts of the country which produce big potatoes are going to get an advantage from this scheme, and the others are going to be penalised. I would like an answer on that point, if possible. Nor do I think that a riddle scheme would be a reliable method of checking the variety of potatoes put on the market; potatoes vary in weight and in volume although they may still pass through the same riddle, and it seems to me to be impossible to make an arbitrary exclusion of this kind. The Minister is perfectly right in saying that the riddle is being worked to-day; I know it is; but it is not worked in the rigid, unbending, unalterable fashion that is laid down in this scheme, and I doubt if it will work.
I desire now to say a word on the acreage side of the proposal. As I see
it, and as many of my farmer constituents see it—and I am speaking for a county where potato growing is a very important part of farm business—as many of these fanners see it, the acreage proposal is going to stabilise the present excessive acreage, and to create a vested interest in that very excessive acreage which is causing the trouble at the present time. With very great respect to the farming industry, I submit that this proposal of theirs is not likely to chieve the objects for which the scheme is formed. It seems to me, too, that it will penalise good husbandry. At the present time there are accepted among farmers certain rules of good husbandry—a certain rotation that must be followed, a certain method of keeping the land in good heart. This scheme, which is going to penalise a man for ploughing up grass, may interfere with the rules of good husbandry. Especially is that the case with stock farming. Stock farmers depend on good grass, and grass may very well run out after a period of years, and it is essential, in order to maintain the quality of the grass on the farm, to plough it up every so often. That effort to obtain a high quality of grass on the farm is going to be penalised, and the food value of the grass for stock will be lessened.
Another very small criticism is that the rights won by tenant farmers in 1923 under the Act of that year—the rights of freedom of cropping, which were much asked for and greatly valued when obtained—may be invaded by this scheme. Under the scheme good husbandry is going to be made into cast-iron husbandry, which will not be good for the farming industry in this country or in Scotland. I submit to the Minister, and with great respect to the farming industry, that, instead of attempting an acreage control, they ought to be satisfied with the provisions of Paragraph 68 of the scheme. That paragraph sets out a quantity control. My submission, and it is also the submission of the Scottish Chamber and of a good many farmers who have had the time and opportunity to understand the scheme, is that, if you have a method such as this clause gives of controlling the quantity, that will give all that is wanted. In fact, Paragraph 68 would
seem to me to be worth all the rest of the scheme put together.
I do not want the scheme to be thrown over. It has in itself the very provisions which I think are necessary. By controlling not the acreage but the quantity put on the market, you would be carrying through a marketing scheme, and controlling supplies equally to all concerned. The big farmer with larger sized potatoes in Lincolnshire would not gain any more in proportion under that method than the poor smallholder in some of the poor land in Fife. It would be a fair and workable method. I could give a case which has come to my notice showing how unfairly this scheme is going to work on an acreage system. Take two farms owned by one landlord. He occupies and farms one holding on which he has a large quantity of potatoes. The other he lets to a farmer who at the time of the scheme coming into operation has no potatoes. The second farm is given up. The rent drops, because there is no chance of growing potatoes on it save by the payment of a penalty. Another holding, which may be put into the market in the same year, having by sheer luck a basic acreage, rises in rent 2s. or 5s. It is not fair that Parliament should put an undue value on one man's property as compared with another. I beg the farming industry to realise that danger which is inherent in the scheme. I suppose the House must pass it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Some scheme is better than none. I have said that in paragraph 68 you have all that I want and all that the farmers want and all that you need to make an efficient scheme. There is a lot in this that is additional and useless in my opinion but I shall not vote against it. Why should I? Am I going to turn down half a loaf because I cannot get a whole one? Farmers are facing bankruptcy not by the hundred but by the thousand and they need all the support the Government can give them. But I suggest that the farming industry should take the scheme back, examine it and re-plan it and produce something more workable, fair and honourable.

11.4 p.m.

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: I feel I must say something after the speech we have just heard. I do not agree that there has not been sufficient propaganda on behalf of the Farmers' Union. At
Ormskirk last week there was a mass meeting of potato growers numbering 1,000 which unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the scheme, and large meetings of a similar character have been held throughout the potato-growing areas of England and Wales, and the same expressions of opinion are forthcoming. I think that Scotland has every reason to be satisfied with the scheme. The riddle is the means of testing the supplies, and there is a greater consideration attached to the riddle than that of regulating supplies, for by that means we shall obtain an efficient system of grading which has been absent from the potato trade for several years. Potatoes have been put on the market in very bad condition, and have thereby been given a very bad name. This scheme will remedy that state of affairs.
A great point has been made of the fact that seed potatoes have not been brought into the scheme. I think that the Scottish potato grower will be very well satisfied that seed potatoes are not brought into the scheme, when I say that the price I have been asked for my seed potatoes for the coming year is about £4 per ton or about twice as much as I can get for my potatoes to-day. Surely, there can be no complaint on that score. There is the question of marking, packing and advertising, and with regard to sales, I think that a great concession has been given to the small grower in that he is to be allowed to supply 1 cwt. lots to his usual customers. The fact must not be lost sight of that the registered producer can sell his own produce in the public market. There is to be no restriction. He can bring his potatoes to Liverpool market or any other market, and sell them provided he is a registered producer. There is to be no restriction whatever with regard to the sales to hospitals, local authorities, hotels and restaurants. A registered producer can sell potatoes, and deliver them to those institutions as formerly.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the scheme has the advantage of organising the potato industry, which, like every other branch of agriculture, has suffered from lack of organisation. You get the advantage of regulation and of distribution, and I am confident that there are parts of London to-day which are sure of a supply of the potatoes grown in the district from which I come,
and these potatoes can be supplied in the poorer parts of London at cheap cost. Where is the organisation to distribute the produce at the present time? We have not the organisation, but under this scheme the organisation will be supplied. The produce will be organised, regulated and distributed by the Board, and that is a great step forward.
Under the scheme we shall get the required supplies of potatoes year by year, instead of the supply in one year being less and in another year more. The board will organise regular yearly supplies, which is another step in advance. The £5 per acre, of which so much has been made, only applies to additional acreage. Surely, those who have borne the heat and burden of the day and have been producing potatoes at less than the cost of production during the last 10 years are fully entitled to any advantage which may come to them under the scheme. I have great pleasure in supporting the scheme, not only in the interests of the producer, but of the consumer, and the very poorest of the poor in our towns and cities, and I give it my wholehearted support.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I was a little surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) because, having started by praising schemes in general and this in particular, and saying that it would receive his warm support and vote in the Division Lobby, he proceeded to smash it point by point for about 20 minutes in a remarkably interesting speech. One would have thought that the result of his observations must have led him to oppose the scheme, because as far as I could make out he never said a word in favour of it. I am going to support the scheme for the very simple reason that the day before yesterday I received a letter from the secretary of the Farmers' Union of Scotland telling me to support it. They ought to know what they want. Apparently they want it. I suspect that the reason they want me to support the scheme is very much the same reason why the hon. Member for East Fife is going to support it, and that is because they know as well as my hon. Friend knows that unless they do they will not get any sort of protection and control of the importation of
potatoes, which is just the thing they are really after. The reason why all these farmers are supporting these schemes by such large majorities is because they know that they cannot get protection unless they do support them. They think that it is better to support these marketing schemes in order to get protection from foreign subsidised produce, because it has been made clear that unless they do support these schemes, they will not get protection.

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the hon. Member must know that under the Import Duties Advisory Committee not only have heavy duties been placed upon potatoes, but they have been put on long before this Scheme.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Of course, I know that duties have been imposed, but I would not call them heavy duties. Duties have also been put on oats, but I would not call them heavy duties. We require much heavier duties than are contemplated by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, or quotas. The farmers know that they are not going to get limitation of imports until they have subscribed to one or other of these marketing schemes. That is one of their great objectives. I am not saying that the Minister is not perfectly entitled to use that weapon to impose better organisation of marketing upon the farmers. All that I say is that I think that is the motive that actuates a large number of them and perhaps accounts more than anything else for the very large majorities in favour of these schemes that the Minister has been getting.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for East Fife in regard to this scheme. I think the riddle will operate unfairly. I disagree with the hon. Member who spoke last. It is possible that you may have large bad potatoes. Equally it is possible to have small good potatoes. Small good potatoes are grown largely in Scotland.

Sir T. ROSBOTHAM: May I assure the hon. Member that we buy small potatoes from Scotland for seed?

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I remind the hon. Member that Scotland has been fairly successful in selling large quantities of small potatoes to the retailer at a considerable profit; and some of these potatoes, which technically cannot be called
seed potatoes, will not be able to get to the consumer under this scheme in the same way as before. I fail to see how, in the long run and over a considerable period, you could in fact, under any scheme, differentiate between seed potatoes and other potatoes. That is a point to which the Minister might devote some attention. Some of us are worried about that. There is another aspect of the matter which causes anxiety and that is that, not only in the words of the hon. Member for East Fife, does this scheme tend to stabilise the production of potatoes at the present level, amongst the different farmers, but that over a period of years it may tend to diminish the production of potatoes. I am old fashioned enough to believe is in the long run rather a bad thing. The main objective of our life should not be to diminish the production of anything. I agree that it would have been much better if this scheme could have been organised on a quantitative rather than an acreage basis. I think that the Under-Secretary has a cast iron case if he says that if that was the view of the Scottish farmers they should have submitted a tonnage scheme some months ago, whereas they have done no such thing. At the same time I do not see why that should prevent a tonnage scheme being given serious consideration at the eleventh hour. My hon. Friend has probably seen the memorandum by Mr. Henderson, of Lawton, who has submitted an alternative scheme based on tonnage.

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Member will recollect that in the scheme now before the House, so far as surplus is concerned, the board is given liberty to deal with it on a tonnage basis.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Yes, but I would rather see it apply throughout the whole scheme, and I think that the Government might give some consideration to this particular alternative. For my own part I confess that I view any scheme for control of production of any form of agricultural produce, and still more a control of prices, with the greatest gloom and apprehension. I have seen the attempts made in the United States by the Secretary for Agriculture to control agricultural production. In the long run I do not think you can do it unless you are 'a Communist country, and even there they have not done it after a period of 10
years. I do not think that you can control production by controlling acreage, but as a scheme of some kind is essential in order to obtain a quantative limitation of imports, which is equally essential, then, as there is no alternative scheme before us, those who regard the present scheme with some anxiety have no chance but to support it in the Lobby in order to get a limitation on the imports of potatoes into this country, which is long overdue.

11.18 p.m.

Lord SCONE: Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) I have received a communication from the National Farmers Union of Scotland urging me to support the scheme, and again like my hon. Friend I am going to do so but not because the National Farmers' Union tell me to do so. I am not going to take orders from them as to how I shall vote or from anyone else, but I support the scheme because I think it is going to be a great benefit to agriculture. I do not say that it is an ideal scheme. I have had objections to it put to me by the indefatigable Mr. Henderson of Lawton, and I agree that the scheme suggested by him and his friends is on paper preferable but it has been brought forward too late to be considered as practical politics at the moment. If it is found that the present scheme can be improved, as I think will be the case, then the other scheme can be added to the existing one if it is found necessary and sound. I am in agreement with the last two hon. Members who have spoken in regarding control of sales as being, theoretically, a more desirable method of control than the control of acreage planting. I do not like a limitation on acreage; I would rather see some form of control on sales. It is possible, of course, that this may work. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will make some observations on the subject in his reply.
As regards the question whether Scotland ought to have or wants a separate scheme, I think it is quite certain that if such a scheme had been desired we would have heard plenty about it before now. Although a small section may want a separate scheme, the vast majority seem to be at least reasonably satisfied to be in one big scheme for the whole country. The opinion of agriculturists with regard
to marketing schemes has changed very much in the last two years and especially during the last 12 months. I was very glad to hear the Minister Bay something which backed up what I have been telling my own agricultural voters for several years past, and that is that control of imports is not sufficient. The potato crop is one in the case of which our home-grown supplies are quite enough, in many years, to flood the market and cause a tremendous glut. At the same time I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he would make it his business to see that we did not have such excessive imports as would, to a greater or lesser extent, render the present scheme futile.
There are, however, one or two criticisms of the scheme which I would like to make very briefly. The first is with regard to the £5 fine. I am not so much concerned with the person who has to pay this fee as with the result of his activities on the scheme as a whole. It is rather surprising that if a man has cultivated a large acreage in one year he should be permitted to keep this acreage and it should be added to his acreage later on. I should prefer that such a man should be fined, but that henceforth his additional acreage should not be allowed to be added to the basic acreage. It seems to me undesirable that this additional acreage should be added in any circumstances.
As regards the method of voting, we have nine different areas throughout the country, and it seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to get a proper vote. Take the last three districts. There is the Northern. It is a very large area, and it is surely going to be very difficult to get an adequate proportion of the district to vote. It will be still more difficult in the widely-scattered area of Wales and Monmouth, and perfectly impossible in Scotland where, even if you hold a meeting in the centre of Scotland in my own constituency, you still have people coming over 200 miles from the North and 150 miles from the South. It seems to me that a provision might be made for the sub-division of a district into several areas, so that you would have different voting points, and votes could be taken on the same day simultaneously in a dozen different areas in each district.
That would enable a much larger number of producers to attend and would get away from so much voting by proxy, which I do not regard as a satisfactory expedient. It is somewhat of the nature of the card vote which has played such havoc in the trade unions. With regard to the publication of information concerning orders: Here Scotland certainly scores at the expense of England. Apparently publication is to be in the "Times," the "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald." There is an enormous number of farmers in England, a great majority; who certainly do not read the "Times," but who read the local newspapers. I am told that in Wales there are some so benighted as to read the "News-Chronicle." Although that may show a lack of appreciation on their part, even so for these backwoodsmen something should be done to make them acquainted with the scheme.
These criticisms are meant to be helpful. I intend to vote for the scheme because I think it will do good, but I think the points I have raised are worthy of consideration. I am disappointed at the attitude of both the oppositions to the scheme. We have had a repetition of the tactics by which the Socialist and Liberal parties attempted to spoil the Agricultural Marketing Bill last summer. It is not much good for those parties to pay lip-service to the cause of agriculture if they endeavour—fortunately without success—to hamstring every Measure introduced for the benefit of agriculture. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to wish this scheme to succeed. I am desperately anxious that it should succeed. The position of the agricultural industry, especially in Scotland, is very bad. The primary agricultural products in Scotland, excluding pigs and poultry, are oats, barley, potatoes, milk, beef and mutton. There is no adequate return at present on any of them, except barley and mutton, and the producers of barley are confined practically to one fairly small though very important area. We must get some other crop which will give us a return upon our labour and capital and enable us to pay proper wages to the workers.
A large number of Scottish farmers are almost entirely dependent on two crops, namely, oats and potatoes, neither of which is paying at present. There seems
little prospect of getting what we regard as adequate protection and limitation of imports in the case of oats. For Heaven's sake let us get something done in regard to potatoes. We must have consideration not only for the small farmers both in Scotland and England. We must also remember the plight of the agricultural workers, tens of thousands of whom have lost their employment and have not the benefit of unemployment insurance, while scores of thousands who are still in employment have suffered such reductions in wages as make it difficult for them to maintain themselves and their families at a proper level. For that reason, no matter what the deficiencies of the scheme may be, I propose to vote for it. I am glad to think that at last we shall get something done which will give a chance to the producers of one of our most important crops a chance of making a decent living and paying better wages to their workers.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think the House will regard this Debate as having been anything other than useful, and although when it comes to a decision our power, in regard to this stage of the scheme, will be simply to say "Yea" or "Nay," the importance of the Debate is that it takes place—assuming the scheme to be passed—before the poll of the producers which is the final and most important stage. Therefore, at a critical moment it concentrates the attention of producers upon points in regard to which some hon. Members, who are well qualified to speak, feel some difficulty and doubt and on which they think there should be an answer. It has been suggested that at an earlier stage of the scheme some of the producers were ignorant of its provisions. Such was the proposition of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). I think that experience of the actual voting on the scheme, in the cases, now several in number, where a poll has taken place entirely rebuts the suggestion that at a critical moment the producers were not acquainted with the scheme, because the proportion of votes has been extremely high and not in every case has the result of the voting been the same. There seems to be nothing automatic in the action of the producer when he comes face to face, at the critical moment, with the scheme. A large number of detailed
and practical questions have been asked, and from what I have already said the House will see that I, at all events, attach importance to those questions being answered. A good many of them, I hope and believe, in view of my desire not to detain the House too long, can be answered in a general way, but I hope that before I sit down I shall have dealt with all the questions that have been asked, or that hon. Members feel to be important, and I trust that if any hon. Member feels that important questions have not been answered, he will ask for them to be answered.
First of all, there was the general proposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that the scheme did not sufficiently consider the duties of the retailers and the position of the consumers. The answer to that is, I think, the Marketing Act of 1931, which dealt most carefully with the position of the consumers and any rights that may be injured by the operation of the scheme, and so important is it, that I will recall to the House in general the position. I need not say much about the Consumers Committee, except that it is constituted for the direct purpose of bringing to a focal point the views of consumers about marketing schemes, but the Committee of Investigation is of vital importance, and when I deal with it, hon. Members will see that it answers a variety of detailed questions. The House must recollect that the function of the Committee of Investigation is to inquire into the grievances of any persons adversely affected by a scheme, and then to report to the Minister, and the Minister, off his own bat, if I may use a homely phrase, and without any poll or long-continued procedure, can amend the scheme in order to deal with the grievances and injuries which the Committee of Investigation has pointed out to him. The House will see how important these two committees are, and the House, I think, will see that their existence under the Marketing Act of 1931 is the real answer to my hon. Friend, who says that inside the clauses of the scheme itself there does not seem to be much about either retail prices or consumers. The main work of safeguarding has been done for all time, and with regard to all schemes, in the Marketing Act of 1931, and that is my answer to my hon. Friend.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member will not forget that my complaint very largely is the lack of duties of the Consumers' Committee and of the Investigation Committee, too. First of all, you have to wait for a complaint to come from an individual or a body, and then the Minister of Agriculture has the power to sift all complaints, and he finally and definitely determines which, if any, of the complaints is ultimately to be sent to the Investigation Committee.

Mr. SKELTON: I would remind my hon. Friend that the procedure is mainly that of the Act of 1931, and I do not wish to get into a detailed argument, with so many observations ahead of me, but I am not myself at all alarmed that the procedure will be slow, and I am certain that the fact that there are these two committees affords exactly the safeguard, emphasis on which was the main point of my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir It. Hamilton) made the general comment that the scheme was strangely unlike the Bacon Scheme. It would have been a disaster if it had been like it. In the Bacon Scheme the object was largely to increase the home production of an agricultural product hitherto much neglected in this country. In the Potato Scheme the object is to prevent—I am speaking broadly—the over-production of an agricultural product of which we can produce all that we need. Frequently in the last 10 years we have produced more than we ever wanted or could consume. Therefore, I take it as a satisfactory observation about this scheme that it is unlike the Bacon Scheme. The result of over-production is the destruction of those who produce. On that matter, I think all sides of the House will agree that there are in different circumstances different functions of marketing schemes. They can either develop or stabilise a product.
As this scheme applies to both England and Scotland, it has been suggested that there are some special disadvantages to Scotland. Although I am not a practical farmer, I sat for a large number of years for one of the main potato-growing districts of Scotland, and I am not in complete ignorance of this subject. Although I can never pretend to be an expert, I do know my way a little about the subject, and that helped me in dealing with
the question of whether or not there was any particular danger to Scotland or for any classes of Scottish people for whom we had a special responsibility. All I can say in general is that the main objections to the scheme as originally set forth have been met, and the meeting of these objections cuts the ground to a large extent beneath the feet of those who criticise the scheme.
With regard to the use of the riddle to regulate the amount of potatoes that can be sold, this scheme no longer necessitates the use of the riddle as a means of controlling the surplus. Any other means that seem good to the board can be adopted. The language of the scheme is such that there is no question of trial and error with regard to the riddle, but the board can decide after adequate discussion whether the riddle or some other method should be used to control a surplus. I stress the importance of that because many of us are well aware that there is an embryonic counter scheme, and that scheme goes in for another method of controlling a surplus other than the riddle. Discussion, I hope, will take place, and I hope there will be ample opportunity for discussion before there is another home surplus or glut. Discussion will enable the board, fortified as it is by a special Scottish Advisory Committee to consider afresh, and with its hands united, whether, if there be a surplus, it should be dealt with by a riddle or another method. That seems to meet the criticism that the surplus should be dealt with by some other means than the riddle. Another point regarding the riddle was scored by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). He appeared to think that the use of the riddle for separating "smalls," which are not to be sold for human food, from the ordinary potatoes would be very detrimental. I am sure that, now that he is the Chairman of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, he will know that the riddle in the scheme is of 1½-inch mesh, whereas the riddle normally used in a Scottish potato-growing district is a 2-inch riddle.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I know it is a 1½ -inch riddle, and I have seen many excellent potatoes, most fit for human consumption, grown in Scotland which would have passed through it.

Mr. SKELTON: That is true, but the great bulk of the potato growers in Scotland who carry out their operations in an up-to-date way do not use a riddle so small as that, thereby keeping out from human consumption an even larger size of potato than the small potato for which my hon. Friend has so passionately pleaded.
The next point in the attack concerned the levy upon new acreage. I do not think that proposal is fully understood, because there was a certain confusion—and I speak now of a wider circle than this House—between the scheme as it originally stood and as it is to-day. Originally the levy of a maximum of £5 an acre was imposed upon the cultivation of new acres. Under this scheme the function of the levy upon the new acres is this: that if the Board is involved in an expenditure in the work of dealing with a surplus, and for that purpose only, then those who are cultivating new acres may be forced to pay a levy. In that form I do not see how anybody can object to that provision, because if there be a surplus it must be, first and fore-most, produced by the new acres which are being cultivated, and therefore it is a right and proper thing that they should bear the first charge in the expenses of dealing with it.

Lord SCONE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this levy is to be for the first year only or every subsequent year?

Mr. SKELTON: The levy will be laid upon the new acres until they are franked by a payment. Another point is the suggestion that seed potatoes should have been included in this scheme. If it is found necessary as a result of the working of this scheme to have a scheme for seed potatoes, it will not be impossible to frame such a scheme. There is the analogy that the House has passed a bacon scheme when there is no equivalent scheme for pigs which are to be consumed as fresh meat. In the one case it was contended that the bacon pig controlled the pork pig, and in this case the human consumption potato controls the seed potato; but if that should not prove to be so in practice it will be quite easy to have another scheme for seed potatoes, and I am not at all sure that anything would be lost by these schemes being separate and different. That is the answer as regards seed potatoes. It
has been suggested, although only very generally in the House this evening, that the main surplus of seed potatoes might suffer by this prohibition, the argument being that a great many small potatoes will be thrust upon the market and that people who have hitherto bought the Scottish potatoes for seed will now use those small potatoes.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is a seed potato?

Mr. SKELTON: A seed potato is one that, curiously enough, should not be eaten by a human being.

Mr. McENTEE: Are those that are capable of being consumed by a pig seed potatoes?

Mr. SKELTON: We may say that a potato that is not to be eaten by anybody is a seed potato. Under this scheme they are dealt with in the same way as pork-pigs are dealt with in the Bacon Scheme. I leave the House to work that out. It has been suggested that the Scottish seed potato trade will suffer for the reason that I have stated. Every farmer will take up this large block of small potatoes which are now to be put up for consumption; but there has always been such a block. Scottish seed potatoes have maintained their position against the small potatoes for the ordinary farmer because of their superior merits. If anybody is foolish enough to neglect a habit that he has got into of using Scottish potatoes for seed, a few years' experience will teach him the error of his ways. I do not fear anything for the Scottish seed potato from this scheme.
One or two particular questions have been asked. More than one hon. Member has spoken severely about Schedule (C) and its procedure. This scheme involves a poll of the producers, the poll has to be asked for by a very small proportion of the producers, and it is carried out, if the producers so desire. The hon. Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) rather seemed to picture that the "specified area" for this purpose might be the whole of Scotland. If she reads the Schedule she will see that it has to be an area in which one of the two exempted methods of sale might press excessively hard, and such a condition could not exist over the whole of Scotland.
In regard to these exemptions, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked me specifically to deal with the question of the lorry-salesman who buys his potatoes for the purpose of selling them to retailers. The hon. Member will find that they are exempted by a definite provision in paragraph 70 (f) as the last of the exceptions under "Sales of Potatoes to a Retailer." He will find, if he looks into the matter, that the position of these men is fully dealt with.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is it not possible that under the procedure to which the Noble Lady drew attention in an earlier speech they might be, none the less, precluded from carrying on their sales of potatoes?

Mr. SKELTON: I agree that that is possible, but if such a thing were done it would clearly be a case for the investigation committee. Hon. Members must bear in mind that the more one deals with these things the more one feels that the great safeguard at the back of the whole scheme in matters in which action by the board might be injurious is the investigation committee.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: What investigation committee?

Mr. SKELTON: It is that committee in discussing which I am afraid I took up ten minutes of the House's time; it is set up under Section 9 of the 1931 Act. It has been suggested that the levy should be on an acreage basis. I dealt with that suggestion fully by pointing out that there is an alternative before the board to dealing with a surplus on an acreage basis.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I ask a question to which I should like a reply? What are the terms on which the board has the power to direct a sale of certain classes of potatoes? Does that mean that they can fix the price?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that it is not proposed that the board shall fix the price, or that any fixing of the price is in this scheme at all. It deals far more with the question of grade and so on. [Interruption. "] I am sorry if I weary the House; I ask those hon. Members
who are not interested in this question to pardon me, for we have to remember that we have a wider audience outside. I will not go into a controversy with the hon. Member for East Fifeshire (Mr. H. Stewart) on the exact number attending the meetings which have been held, but I entirely disagree with his view that this scheme has been proposed by the National Farmers' Union for both countries at the point of the pistol. The truth of the matter is that as far as organisation is concerned the farmers of both countries have been steadily becoming more and more in its favour, and it is neither fair nor right that, when an idea which two years ago was novel has been fully and admirably grasped by those bodies, one should then say that a scheme embodying it has been proposed unwillingly. Nor need I take in full detail the question that there has been no general consultation. The fact is that the duty of the Government and the Minister in approving a scheme, in allowing a public inquiry, and so on, is only that of being satisfied that persons promoting the scheme are duly representative of the producers of the product in the area concerned. The question of how many producers are involved is decided as a whole. If the promoters are found to be representative, the Government have not only a right but a duty to let it proceed.
One other topic of general importance has been raised, and it is also the answer to a question. It has been asked, "Why is there this restriction to authorised merchants? Why should the board have power to restrict to a panel of persons authorised by itself?" The answer will be clear in a moment. Were I criticising this scheme—and, like every other scheme, it has been subjected to anxious criticism—I should concentrate upon the risk of evasion by parcels of potatoes containing an improper amount of small potatoes. There is only one way of dealing with that risk of evasion. Other schemes would, of course, have other risks of evasion. The moment at which you can deal effectively with the risk of evasion is the moment of sale by the producer to an authorised merchant, and if there were to be no control of sales at that moment the scheme might well break down as a result of evasion. One last word—

Duchess of ATHOLL: Would my hon. Friend reply on two important points—first, whether it is possible for the market in this country to be flooded by potatoes from Northern Ireland; and, secondly, whether continuous weekly sales by the same producer to the same consumer would be allowed under Part VII.

Mr. SKELTON: I think there is no doubt that continuous weekly sales are allowed. The effect of Part VII is that, in the case of a contract for the sale of, say, 1,000 tons delivered in quantities of 1 cwt., such a transaction would be permissible, but not a series of separate sales of such quantities to an authorised merchant. With regard to Northern Ireland, it has been agreed between, the merchants and producers in Northern Ireland and the promoters of the scheme, as well as the Government of Northern Ireland, that only a fixed quantity of potatoes shall be allowed to be imported into this country from Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is no risk in that direction.
The suggestion that the large number of small producers may be snowed under by the votes of a few large producers does not tally with the facts. The facts with regard to the size of the producers of potatoes are as follows: Those cultivating five acres or less are 60 per cent., and those cultivating between five acres and 20 acres are another 10 per cent., making 70 per cent. in all, while of very large producers there is only a very small number.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is there any limit?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!.''] This is a very important point. Hon. Members, apparently, do not care about the interests of the small producer. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has not yet answered the point that I made, which was that I do not see that there is any limit to the number of votes that one individual large producer may have under the scheme.

Mr. SKELTON: That is true; the voting power of one large producer cultivating 5,000 acres would be very great But the real answer to my Noble Friend is contained in the figures that I have given. Of the total number of producers, the proportion of these imaginary large producers must be very small.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Surely, the point is their acreage?

Mr. SKELTON: The point is a very difficult one, but I think I can satisfy my Noble Friend by the application of arithmetic. The larger number of the small producers would prevent their being snowed under by a small number of large producers. I notice among my hon. Friends who represent urban constituencies a certain restiveness, but this is the last moment at which the House can deal with a question of vast importance to the agricultural industry, and in no circumstances would I restrict myself on account of the murmurs of urban members. As a matter of fact, however, I think I have succeeded in covering the whole of the ground, and I now commend the scheme to the House. My hon. Friends will realise that one's view as to the importance of this topic varies according to whether one is an urban or a rural Member. I wish to commend the scheme to the House and the country on the view that there have been instructive and expert criticisms of it in its original form but that in our judgment those criticisms, many of which were valid, have been met in the Amendments that have been made and that it is a scheme which those who care for the progress of agriculture can safely vote for and that the final decision may be taken at the polls.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 37.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
 [12.1 a.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.)
Blindell, James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Burghley, Lord


Albery, Irving James
Boulton, W. W.
Burgin, Or. Edward Leslie


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Carver, Major William H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Clayton, Sir Christopher


Balniel, Lord
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colman, N. C. D.


Bateman, A. L.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Conant, R. J. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Buchan, John
Copeland, Ida


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Liddall, Walter S.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Llewellin, Major John J.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Salt, Edward W.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mabane, William
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Eastwood, John Francis
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Scone, Lord


Eden, Robert Anthony
McKie, John Hamilton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somervell, Sir Donald


Fermoy, Lord
Milne, Charles
Soper, Richard


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Moreing, Adrian C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morgan, Robert H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Spens, William Patrick


Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stevenson, James


Goldie, Noel B.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J,
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Graves, Marjorie
Nail, Sir Joseph
Stones, James


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Grimston, R. V.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Straues, Edward A.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nunn, William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Satellite, Harold


Harbord, Arthur
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hartland, George A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Patrick, Colin M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pearson, William G.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Penny, Sir George
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pike, Cecil F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Horsbrugh, Florence
Potter, John
Wells, Sydney Richard


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Radford, E. A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rankin, Robert
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Jennings, Roland
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, William Allan (Darby)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Remer, John R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Womersley, Walter James


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rickards, George William



Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Robinson, John Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lieut.-


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Rea, Walter Russell


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Harris, Sir Percy
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Tinker, John Joseph


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
White, Henry Graham


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Va'ley)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Dobbie, William
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
LERS FOR THE NOBS.—


Edwards, Charles
Parkinson, John Allen
Groves and Mr. Duncan Graham.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Pickering, Ernest H.



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Price, Gabriel

Resolved,
That the Scheme tinder the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, for regulating the marketing of potatoes, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 4th day of December, 1933, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.